The problem of climate change and it's cause(?) is quite nicely described in the following which also applies to all statistically analysed data.

If I look out of the window and see that it is raining I can confidently say that the street is wet.  However,  I cannot look out of the window and see a wet street and confidently say it is raining.

Herein lies the problem of all the models and measurements,  it is called a causal link or lack of it!

Given that the world has only finite resources of oil,  it certainly makes sense to conserve  as best we can with all the implications this has for the rich and poor of the world but a vast new trading system will not help in this regard.

I BELIEVE that Paul has absolutely hit the nail on the head, but not for the reason he thinks. When confronted by a rabid mob of believers screaming heritic, denier, sceptic most people probably keep quite ala inquistion. For Paul now to suggest that to just ignore anyone who does't agree with him and anyone else on the agw bandwagon certainly shows how interested the "Believers" are in a debate of any kind on agw let alone an alive and vibrant one. I dont belive in agw but I do believe in climate change and maybe agw is part of it, but when you can't believe the ipcc and a bunch of lunies who cant stand someone who askes questions or has other ideas I'll make up my own mind. I guess everyone is different and when someone is trying to force something down your throat some people swalllow some people gag.

Whilst:

1. every single major scientific body in the world supports the AGW thesis;

2. there have been NO peer reviewed papers published to date which point to any other potential cause of the majority of the observed warming (it's not solar radiation - which is decreasing, its not ocean currents, its not magnetic fields); and

3. the aparent risks of continuing business as usual may be disasterous, whilst the costs of doing something are only moderately expensive (in relative terms) - I don't think it will exactly criple economies and send us back to the pre-industrial age

why would we choose not to take action? It is true that whilst these are risks which are difficult to evaluate and even harder to quantify, it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution, would it not? The planet is not just here at the behest of mankind. Why do we feel that we can play fast and loose with its future, for the sake of the comfort provided by absolute certainty. The only absolute certainty will occur once it's too late, much like the smoker who waits for cancer before giving up the smokes.

By the way, who are these "real" scientists that those on this forum refer to? How are they different or more qualified than the scientists whose research you believe is flawed and what peer reviewed papers have they published to support their conclusions? Cedric Wade - books are not peer reviewed papers. They have a tendancy to twist, misuse and cherry pick segments of research to make their own conclusions. This is less of a risk in a peer reviewed journal, so please send these references through at your convenience.

Your article implies that it is accepted theory amongst "scientists" yet I seem to find an ever increasing number of the scientific community questioning both the data and theory.  Accepted amongst the media maybe, but then journalists aren't all that great at getting things right either! When the media start classifying those who oppose there view with names such as "denier, sceptic" rather than sound arguement, logic or answers, it often makes me start to doubt what I am being indoctrinated.  Belief.  I think it is the opposite, the religion of climate change is probably much closer to the truth!

(**This comment was added by Climate Spectator eds on behalf of Tony Austin)

In the history of science, going back over the centuries and indeed the millennia, it's fascinating what people -- even smart ones -- have been prepared to believe, without proof or understanding. And at times what theories they've come up with.

For example, consider the Phlogiston Theory which later on we consider rather crazy but which at the time seemed plausible. Then there are other theories or concepts which have survived the test of time and seem to be generally applicable. One such is Le Chatelier's Principle. A more esoteric one would be the concept of entropy. These are both now widely accepted.

When talking about an incredibly complex physical system with a maze of interactions, such as a planet's climate, there are so many variables in play that developing a unifying explanation, then being able to test its veracity and  use it for predictive purposes, is fraught with difficulties to put it mildly.

At one extreme, you won't get very far with pure logic of the sort shown here. At the other extreme is the "messiness" of climate science. The acceptability of a wide assortment of  measurements, followed by the analyses and inferences being drawn, not to mention the the predictions being put forward with some bravado, are difficult enough for climate specialists to agree upon let alone for scientists in other disciplines -- some of whom have not been backward in coming forward, as the saying goes.

It's much more difficult for non-scientists, the "laymen" if you will. So I think Paul is quite right in talking about there being far too much "believing" in the climate debate instead of scientific rationalism..

I'm a scientist by training but have been a non-practitioner for decades, and am still unsure how it will all pan out. I'm certainly not a climate change denier. Mildly sceptical, I'd say, unsure that all the necessary measurements have been taken, worried about the exptrapolations being made, and a little concerned that some of the conclusions drawn and predictions espoused are not soundly enough based to make long-term (and extremely expensive) decisions.with surety.

Off and on, I've mused about some of these considerations (and other matters scientific) over at http://basicquestions.blogspot.com/ so please take a glance if you're interested.

Tony Austin

The main problem with this article is saying that belief is inherintly irrational. This is absurd. Belief is the psycological state of believing something is true. Hence any fact we can verify is true bceomes a belief in our minds once we accept it. There is nothing wrong with that, it must be that way. Belief is not the problem, it is irrational belief and bias that is the problem. I agree that we should always be skeptical and never simply accept what is being said. We should only believe in things because evidence and rational logic lead us to the conclusion inescapably, even if that conclusion is an acceptance of uncertainty. Blind faith in believing without good reason or rational/logic is the problem. Choosing to believe something is the problem, it is by definition irrational and should have no place in any belief system, religious, climate or other.

Since when did Christianity suddenly become a religion that has no rational basis? Your claim that 'belief' and reason are incompatible is certainly not a claim of Christian orthodoxy. To be wrong on this score does not inspire confidence in your other assertions.

I am a true sceptic. Your approach in this article attempts to paint sceptics as deniers. I believe I am intelligent enough to consider both sides of any argument with an objective approach. I believe that climate change promoters are driven by faith and expect the gullible to follow unquestioningly. Evidence of this are the attempts to paint skeptics as unintelligent deniers. I believe that the earth's climate has been changing since the earth's creation. I believe that prior to man's industrialization the earth has experienced far warmer periods than the exaggerated hockey stick projections presented by Gore et al. It has also experienced ice ages. I believe that certain governments and international organisations have conjured up a Trojan horse to raise money for ulterior motives. I believe that direct action such as promotion of forest growth and environmental awareness education (not the type driven by unquestioning ideological faith) is more important than raising another form of tax to subsidise another worldwide bureaucracy. I believe that carbon dioxide is essential for forest growth. I believe that the oceans emit and absorb far more CO2 than man can create anthropomorphically. I believe that the elements of the universe, the earth's uneven elliptical orbit, the earth's axis wobble, the sun spots, the ocean movements, the sub-marine and sub-surface volcanic movements and related temperature transfers, etc. etc. are all far more significant in their effects on the earth's climate than the anthropomorphic CO2 claims. I believe our real problem is corrosive and poisonous pollution. I very strongly believe that the world's unsustainable population growth will eventually come to surface as the most real and serious problem this earth can face. I believe that if the UN and various governments want something real to create an alarmist projection, it should be population. Not swine flu, not climate change - rather the focus should be on exponential human population growth. I also believe there are humanitarian solutions to this problem. Now that is believable.

Belief & arrogance are the province of the headlong headstrong.

Skepticism is the province of the scientist.

Ask yourself honestly: Which one describes your behaviour?

.
Use of the term "net emissions", implies a belief in negative emissions to offset the emissions that we really are making. Why do some of us believe there is such a thing as negative emissions?
.
Offsets and biosequestration are vain beliefs. There is no new process that stores away many gigatons per annum of CO2 for thousands of years and more. We believe in offsets because we want to, not because facts support our faith.
.
Most of the old "carbon cycle" processes that we learnt on faith in school are not responding to the new pressure, they are faltering under the impact of the hockey stick.  Only the weathering of rock will remove our CO2, long after we have gone.
.
The facts are grim. Expect denial.

You are right on the money comparing climate science to a religion.

Aleluia Brother.

Of course the climate is changing. The issue is not whether its changing or not. THE ISSUE is the rate(s) of change(s), i.e. velocities - meaning (a) the speeds and (b) the directions. Now, how accurately can we currently predict the future here - and ascertain that velocity - for the next say 500 years? Not accurately at all I reckon. What about the next 50 years? ditto I reckon. If so, what do we do? Don't worry about CO2. Worry about the O2 and the H2O in the atmosphere, especially the first 10,000m of it. All the best.

Belief has little to do with the argument about climate change and particularly, AGW threats.  Facts is where it is at, and only facts.

Science can PROVE that the climate has changed since this molten rock cooled to form a mostly solid rock that eventually calmed down enough to allow life forms to grow on it, and eventually become the diverse array of organisms and species we have now.  The climate has always changed, throughout the planet's history.  It will continue to change.

However, only a person with a "belief" could be proclaiming that climate change is man's fault, and/or is caused by man!  All the work and effort we could do to change the CO2 levels in the atmosphere for a decade were wiped out in a month of a single volcano in Iceland, and now we have yet another in Indonesia.  In Chile we have a number that have smoked for decades. We have annual forest fires of natural origin around the planet, and each of these does more to contribute to the planetary CO2 level than man ever will.

However, CO2 - so what?  We are a carbon based planet!  Animal, vegetable or mineral - unless it's a mineral, it's carbon based and it will eventually decompose to create carbon gases, which are in turn necessary for the cycle of life on the planet to continue! CO2 is not the issue!

The cycles of climate are changing and we are now in a cooling phase, for the last decade.  There is more likelihood of a mini ice age than a temperature rise, according to the true science, although the IPCC wants us to believe (beliefs again!) that the planet is still warming!

For the facts - check out this page and read the articles - real science, nothing to 'believe', just facts to check! http://www.politicalguts.com/id6.html

If you find your 'beliefs' changing afterwards, then that is your choice too, but the facts won't change!

Ray Jamieson

Author

Science is evidence withour certainty

Religion is certainty without evidence

Where does climate change fit on this spectrum?

Whenever i find myself being swayed by a "warmist", I always google "world earth day 1970" for reassurance that there is no link between human CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures, and like the globe in 1970 I cool back down.

The climate has been changing ever since this world came into existence. The ice ages, for example, are proof of that. How could anyone not believe in it?

Those denialists who claim that the only thing we have to support anthropomorphic climate change is "modeling" are presumably unaware that Irish scientist John Tyndall built experimental apparatus and demonstrated in 1859 that atmospheric carbon dioxide was a strong absorber of heat radiation.

Last year Scientific American republished an article that first appeared in its pages in 1959, explaining at length the science behind the effect of increasing carbon dioxide on the atmosphere. It is available online at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dioxide-and-climate

I have a great desire to live on the coast with a sea view.

I live in Arcliffe, high on the hill overlooking Botany Bay.

Global warming is my only hope , as I will never beable to afford that dream.
Im all right Jack.....except if my dream comes true my job will be under water.....oh well...cant have it all.

PS

Ive taken to smoking a pipe to help GW on the way.

The one question that the "believers" do not answer is having achieved their goal of XXX ppm of carbon, what will the climate be like, garden of Eden prehaps or just more of the same??.

Thew whole reason they changed the words from Global warming to climate change is and was a cynical desire to put those who who don't believe in significant human cause in the looney basket.  There is no one in the world who does not believe in climate change, it is just how and by what.

Most science is actually about belief and a preferred set of beliefs without any necessary sound reasoning.

Hey look at Einstein, many of his theories came about becasue he had preconceived ideas of what a model should be and when his tests revealed somethign he did not like he simply formulated new theories to avoid the outcomes of his tests.

We all act the same way in most cases and science is no different.  Start with a preconceived idea and then find ways to justify it.

No one denies we should not try and be more green, it is just the degree to which we become like the watermelon greens.

Well now, Joe Reid, I am a geologist who did my study in the late 1950's. I was taught way back then to be wary of the word of any other and to check for myself available data and intrepete as appropriate. I feel sad about those that follow blindly the teachings of others.

Data on the effects of man-made carbon dioxide on the atmosphere are inconclusive - therefore those seeking to reduce such emissions are acting on a belief.

Continue to live with the changing climate, as we have done for a few hundred thousand years and as the planet has done for a few thousand million years.

There is no true poisitivist science in climate science. As Scott Sando comments, we can't investigate cause and effect in climates as we can with physical processes we can manipulate. Hence climate scientists use models. This is simply tea leaf gazing. I can construct hundreds of models that account for past sysyem behaviour but may pr may not predict future behaviour. Also these models implicitly assume they have ALL the key variables and parameters, but usually new variables turn up and have to be incorporated and calibrated, It's endless and as soon as a model fails to predict, there's endless work in foxing it. Pay people to read tea leaves and you have a tea leaf reading industry- not science. Climate hysteria is the new tax base of the new millennium. That's all. derivatives, trading, abstract money making abstract profits. No woner people are happier with a aimple tax to limit pollution.

As a geologist who did my study in the early 1990's I was taught back then the realities of climate change (and the very straight forward science behind it) that have become popular in the media now. I like to hear a climate change sceptic's take on things, its generally good for a laugh, like listening to someone trying to argue the earth is flat.

When people get first symptoms of cancer they mostly ignore them. When they eventually see the diagnosis, the first reaction is disbelief. Then it is all too often very late.

Through painful experience humans learned that medical specialists can perform an operation better than amateurs. The tragedy of the impending climate disaster is that the consequences of the operation are delayed by decades. As a result many feel they know how to operate just as well as the best surgeons.

Global Warming part 3 book list - Submitted by Cedric Wade on Mon, 2010-08-30 18:44.

OK..Lets try.

In these books you will find literally hundreds of references to peer reviewed papers, which you can peruse at your leisure. There are some references to news items and media  items, but you can ignore them if you wish.  And many of  the books give appendices of "Additional Reading".

Listing these books gives you far more scope to read an very large volume of peer reviewed papers for yourselves. 

You may find some very convincing data that disagrees with your present opinions...but that is why I am so anxious to provide access to this basic information.

You can read about any of these books on Google or better, on Amazon.

So my first preference is "Climate: The counter Consensus" by professor Robert M Carter  isbn 978-1-906768-29-4. (Paleoclimatologist, Honorary Fellow, Royal Society NZ, Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs)

"The Real Global Warming Disaster" by London Daily Telegraph Journalist, Christopher Brooker isbn 978-1-4411-1052-7 (Yes, he's a journo, but he documents every statement and gives you the reference to the scientific paper and where published)

"Heaven and Earth" by Professor Ian Plimmer. ISBN 978-1-58979-472-6 (School of Earth Sciences Adelaide, twice winner of Australia's highest Scientific Honour, th Eureka Prize)

"The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon isbn 978-0-9800763-1-8 (Environmental activist, contributor to Toronto National Post; Mr Solomon, probed Al Gore's "Deniers" and was shocked to find these eminent Scientists casting doubt on the foundations of the "Calamity" story of Global Warming. The credentials of each of the following interviewees and references to numerous scientific papers involved in the discussion  are listed. The "Deniers" include Dr Edward Wegman former chairman of th Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Science; Dr David Bromwich president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology: Prof. Paul Reiter, chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at th Pasteur Institute: Prof Hendrik Tennekes director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: Dr Christopher Landsea past chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones; Dr Antonio Zichichi former President European Physical Society; Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski Expert on ice cores from ancient ice analysis of which illuminate climate trends over geologic time; Prof Freeman Dyson eminent physicist...  None exactly obscure little men in small rooms under the stairs.

"Air Con" by Journalist Ian Wishart isbn 978-0-9582401-4-7 Every statement foot-noted to the source..many to scientific papers; some to statements made by politicians and scientists in the media.

"Power Hungry" by Robert Bryce isbn978-1-58648-789-8 A Journalist with a mathematical bent. Takes assertions about "Green Energy" and explains how difficult it will be for Solar and Wind to supply the gigantic daily power requirements of th world, and why, like it or not, coal and petroleum generated energy will be with us for at least another century.

I hope you can/will access some or all, and consider the data presented.

Perhaps all of you true believers should read the attached article by Dr Roy Spencer. Dr Spencer is a real scientists and, if you read what he has to say, can provide you with some real insight into how science should be done.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/dump-the-ipcc-process-it-cannot-be-fixed/

These numbers are only general but quoted from accepted sources... 15,000 years ago the site of Toronto was under 3-5 kilometers of ice which had all but gone 5000 years ago, certainly totally gone now - a metre depth of ice every three years or so.Was this all down to Inuits with seal fat lamps or was there something else upsetting the planetary heat balance, including overcoming the significant albedo effect of so much ice? Perhaps we are still seeing the ice loss which began then and continues to today, which has allowed the development of the human race, for better or worse!

Tom, I both respect and reject your claims. As a geologist I agree wholeheartedly with you analysis about the ever changing climate and geomorphic features of our planet resulting from intrinsic and external factors ever evident on our planet by analysis of changes over the geological time cycle. However I reject that human activity has not accelerated the warming experienced since human migration began with the receeding ice of the last ice age. Please see the CSIRO document http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf and in particular the evidence of rapid rise over the last century.

People are accused of being climate change deniers when they are only questioning the extent of human influence on temperature. I have never met anyone who actually believes that the climate has never changed.  

I was a "climate change believer" until the Copenhagen Fiasco. If the powers of the world aren't all that interested,as displayed in Copenhagen, then why should I worry my little pointy head about it. Even if I did once again start to care , there are too many vested interests involved that are far more powerful than me. Quite frankly, Copenhagen finished me as a supporter of affirmative action on Climate Change. I'm now a Climate Change Agnostic.