In some ways I agree with you Longy......Some scientists have made wild predictions and exaggerated claims that have been proven to be false, which has damaged their credibility and allowed opponents of ACC the opportunity to discredit the whole scientific community over this issue.

Where I remain sceptical is the opponents of climate change only have to provide evidence of errors 0.1% of the time to discredit the whole scientific research process yet climate scientists must be correct 100% of the time or they are discredited as liars and frauds by those whom deny the existence of AGW.

It is interesting you use the word faith to describe those who accept the science of AGW to imply that there is no credible evidence to support the science and it required faith to believe. The same argument could be used to describe those who believe in God which is based on a book written over 2000 years ago that attributed natural events to the existence of an all powerful being who was controlling our lives and created the universe. To accept there is a God requires faith without any supporting evidence to prove Gods existence, not a single miracle or proven fact has been provide since this book was written to support the existence of any God, yet faith provides the basis of your whole belief system. This is hardly the position any true sceptic would adopt which is why I question your belief you are in any way a true sceptic who requires evidence to believe anything.

Why I remain sceptical of those who support the denial of AGW is the vested interests behind the "denialist movement",  such as the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Marshall Institute which where all funded by the fossil fuel industry until their involvement was exposed and they withdrew their funding. This funding was of course replaced by vastly wealthy and profoundly conservative foundations like Scaife and John M Olin as well as foundations managed by Charles and David Koch who are profoundly conservative, deeply ideological anti-socialist, anti-regulation, anti-statist, low-tax libertarians.

So while I remain sceptical I also understand the vested interests involved on both sides of the argument that are pulling us in different directions. I also understand that most Scientists and Governments believe some action is required to curb AGW and provide renewable energy that does not rely on fossil fuel to deliver the energy our modern society now relies on so heavily. To be a sceptic is to question everything without believing one thing or the other but there is more reason behind the AGW argument than the 0.1% of evidence being supplied by the "denialist movement" and the vested interests driving their beliefs.

Do I believe in AGW beyond any doubt, no I do not. However I am also not convinced there is no merit to the vast peer review science that has been presented to support the need to curb our greenhouse emissions. If faith is required to believe in AGW it requires faith to deny its existence. Do we put our faith in the fossil fuel industry or the vast majority of scientists and Governments who believe there is reason to act???



Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:34am:


best response yet Phil - not that the bar is set that high.  I do however call into question your 0.1% error claim.  the entire point is that the error margin is massive and the rate of error, 100%  the CACC crowd gets every prediction wrong and usually by a very large margin. 

in 2012 the graph that showed there had been no warming for 17 years was denied, repudiated and mocked by climate activists despite being their own data.  and now of course, this pause is undeniable. my point is that it was NEVER undeniable. but the fact that they continued to deny it revealed that their agenda was anything but science. the term 'denialist' most appropriately belongs to climate activists who deny the facts of our climate and instead live on their predictions and ideology.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:42am:


Y2K was a global embarrassment due to the mass hysteria it generated.  the IT industry was well aware of the problem and had been for many years prior. I too was working on the problem and it was something we generally laughed at how the world was getting sucked into the hype.  The problem was real, the problem was fixed.  the hysteria however was a global embarrassment and as usual, the biggest noises were the least qualified to speak

enter Al Gore stage left...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:47am:

Without people being aware of a potential problem then there is every chance the problem will be ignored.  It's as simple as that.  It isn't hysteria as you put it, it's awareness of the issue, the possible outcomes if the issue is not addressed, and the push for solutions as a result of this awareness.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:47am:


he predicted Adelaide would run out of water 3 years ago.  the BoM predicted a dry warm winter.  amazing how so much education and so much funding can still deliver outcomes that couldn't be worse if they tried.

It has been the coldest winter in 10 years and once of the wettest as well.

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 11:53am:


except there is no warming and the warming prior to the last 17 years was a minute 0.,89 degrees for a world that is still coming out of a mini ice age.

and you still wont say there has been no warming even tho your climate hysteric friends have begrudgingly said exactly that.

For those that love a good trend...as we know trends don't lie...with the exception of the base information of course.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php

Kytro wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 10:20am:


When temperatures  are measured in 1/10 degrees, it is only when we average them that we get an 'accuracy' of 1/100 of a degree.