good article describing the viewpoint of the author and many climate scientists, and the pitfalls with large-scale politicized studies. He claims and supports his claims that far from being "politicized" and thus made more radical by the political processes, these large scale papers end up dramatically watered down. Worth reading.

The author is a scientist seeking to explain that while global warming data is complex, it is not contradictory, and the IPCC report is probably understated. Effects of warming being observed are accelerating at exponential speed, explained by the concept of "amplifying feedback". He specifically refutes several "denial" arguments. There are ample sources and many links for those unconvinced of his thesis.

This is a good explanation of why the IPCC reports are so wishy-washy. And, why there is little place for consensus in a scientific discussion.

The scientific method involves the use of data and models and truth checking of those models to verify them and their error bounds. They serve as a means of upsetting consensus if past consensus is wrong. When political bias forces changes in claims of what the science says, then science is diminished in how much it can be used to solve problems. Consensus should not be used to refer to the outer limits of agreement to which the ignorant can be dragged. Point taken. Now we need better language in which to frame the argument.

The author does not begin to address the issues concerning the supposed consensus. He has a totally naive faith in climate models and peer review. In short, he has no idea what he is talking about.

The author seeks to explain climate issues in this opinion piece. However he makes a fatal error in assuming that because data (effects) are known we must know the causes. This simply is not so. While we can say "global average temperatures increased from 1972 to 1998" or "the winter of 2007-8 is one of the coldest in more than 50 years", this does not mean that we know why. Models are constantly being changed because new information shows their assumptions to be wrong. Right now the major scientific interest is in why the start of the next sunspot cycle has been delayed by a year already, suggesting from past data the start of a new little ice age, a factor totally unrelated to CO2 in the atmosphere. The astonishingly rapid ... More »