The point is this: "the science is settled" argument to end debate on AGW or any other area of scientific knowledge is an unscientific argument. It is an appeal to unscientific authority, not to science.
AGW may or may not be true but the science is certainly not settled.

Soren wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 12:45pm:


I'm not sure who coined the term "settled". The only time I've seen that term used was in strawman arguments, or perhaps in the public arena by activists, but I'm happy to be shown otherwise.  "Robust" might be a better term to use.

The science that can be used to predict sunrise times for world cities and that used to predict satellite orbits is similarly robust.  

Does that mean that in the future, we might find something more robust than the relativistic calculation? Sure - it's possible, but it's not going to change the values significantly.

Our understanding of nature is an evolving and never-ending process. We’re forever refining and reforming our model of reality. Anyone who suggests that the science is “settled” is missing the point. Does that mean that we should just ignore high risk evidence that is presented on the back of some pretty robust and tested science? Of course not.

I look forward to the day when such elevated scientific method replaces the bitter and personalised arguments over settled science which today characterises earth-scale climate studies..

Michael Asten, Professorial Fellow, Monash University, Melbourne

. Settled science challenged and proved wrong
 - Soren

This appears to be the first reference to 'settled', ..but I couldn't be f'n bothered to go back further.
Read the f'n letter'.....  no thanks - got better things to be doin' don't ya know?

yeah

probably works for Treasury.!!  That'd be right up his a....

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 11:26pm:


All the rest of your post is correct. Maybe I wasn't clear, but it was not my intention to muddy the waters - just to point out that the uncertainties that exist are not particularly significant in this area - at least for the broad details that should instigate urgent action on fossil fuel combustion. 

We're talking about certainties of 99% plus here. You don't dwell on the remaining 1% hoping that it will make the whole problem go away.

Financial markets work with much lower odds.

I don't know why you are having this argument -   because  ,,..?  IMO
Nothing is settled.

Our assumptions are always open to challenge.  I say 'assumptions'  in reference to the idea of 'settled science'.
As has been pointed out - that which has seemed settled, actually has undreamt-of further possibilities.

So it is with climate change.  We don't actually KNOW what's coming with 99% certainty - JUST like EVERY OTHER thing you choose to dispute.
Sensibility  means we don't argue about whether humans need water or air to survive, for example.
That IS obvious.!!

But after that it seems ... we reach a nexus of dispute.
Should we take active steps to address the impact we have had on our environment over the last, say, two hundred years..??
..or should we ignore it and hope it goes away?, ...  or argue the issue until.. ?? .... (as seems likely at present) ...it cannot be denied any longer??. (ie too late)

 It seems we humans are so insular and stubborn that  something has to happen to US individually - something disastrous, before we are shaken from our smugness.

And even then, it seems we just want to 'rebuild'  -  back to just the way it was before.  
Talk about ostriches and sand!!!!!!

Serious concerns for long term viability IMO.

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 9:31am:


Nicely parroted strawman. It was actually around 375 ppm in 2000. I actually agree with your statement that the increase in CO2 up to around 2000 had a relatively minor  impact from 1800 to 2000, but nobody is actually saying anything different to that.  What is a concern is the  projected emission rates which will result in an approximate doubling of CO2 is likely to happen around 2050- 2100 depending on what actions the world takes.  The break-even point in terms of risk is around a 2 degree rise in Global temperatures.

I can't believe that you didn't notice that.

muso wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 10:10am:



Hang on. Almost every weather event other than a gentle spring zephyr has been blamed on industrial man's impact on the climate over the last x decade/century. That little bit of CO2 change (from 0.0275 % to 0.375% - NOT all due to humans) has been made responsible for floods, blizzards, melting, freezing, wind, no wind.
If the atmospheric CO2 doubles from 0.0275% to 0.05 % by 2100 - what then? In the context of all the elements and interactions and balances and counterbalances and all the complexities hitherto poorly understood about the global climate, an increase by 0.027% of anything is not going to cause a massive change.