OK Aviate 1138, let me reply to a few points. First let me make it clear where I am coming from. I am a scientist and academic - a Reader in the Department of Geography at the University of Durham in the UK, which is the highest ranked Geography Department in the UK (and possibly the world). I am Director of the International Landslide Centre and Acting Director of the Institute of Hazard and Risk Research. My specialist research is landslide impact, particularly in developing countries. Climate change, in terms of its effect on landslides, is a key part of much of this work.
OK, so let's address a few of your points:
"How interesting - they wouldn't be the ones anxious to keep their Financial Grants going. How would they do that if Climate Change is just a given fact and we have no real influence over it. Or ever will be able to."
I absolutely refute this point. In fact, I would find it far easier to get research grants and publications if I were to take the line that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. There are huge sums of money available for people who take this line. For most scientists, arguing that global warming is real leads to a reduction in potential research funding, not an increase.
Actually, 10 years ago I was a real cynic about anthropogenic climate change, as were most of my colleagues. However, we can only interpret the data that we have - and the evidence is, I'm afraid, stacking up. The case is not proven, but that is science. For most of us the balance of probabilities is coming down on the side of anthropogenic climate change. Your cynicism about the scientific community is, in my view, totally misplaced.
"Of course when Scientific progress is made it is always done by the majority of Scientists isn't it?" One of the great things about science is that contributions can and are made by individuals, teams and international consortia. There is still a place for all of these, and indeed most scientists still work individually for at least part of the time. I don't actually see what this has to do with the argument. The nature of science is that to be accepted the work has to stand up to scrutiny through peer review - often I receive material to review that I don't agree with, but which is an interesting interpretation for discussion, so publication occurs. Sometimes they are right, sometimes I am - investigation of hypotheses, and debate about them, is how science advances. This is happening all the time with climate science - material is published on all sides of the argument. Through time, theories and hypotheses are tested and validated or rejected and understanding moves forwards. Ultimately, we aim to get to a point in which the consensus is that the theory explains the available facts in the most simple way. At the moment, for most of us anthropogenic climate change comes closest to fulfilling that criteria, though there is still a lot of work to do. We are applying real science, and proper scientific methods, and will continue to do so. If a lone scientist has something to contribute then great.
For me, and most other scientists, the best paper that I could ever write would be the one that proves definitively that the anthropogenic climate change theory is wrong. That would be instant fame, fortune, a job for life, a high score in the RAE, citations, TV appearances (if that is what you want - I don't actually), etc. There are many, many very intelligent people trying to write that paper - but no-one has succeeded (or indeed come close), and many of the potential lines that were being followed have proven to be dud. Maybe someone will - but I don't see any evidence of it at the moment.
"Our human psyche must explain the inexplicable." Yes, but science is about trying to undertake that explanation in a way that is logical, consistent and that allows us to predict / forecast. Along the way we put up our theories and invite criticism and even for people to disprove them. That is how science works. It is the best we have, unless you have a better idea? We will get to the bottom of climate change, and the results will not necessarily be the ones that the funders, or the public, want to hear.
"We can't even predict accurately any weather other than general conclusions." Well, not quite true. We can now forecast pretty well 24-48 hours ahead. We can predict within about 0.1C what the global average temperature will be this year (0.55 C above the long term trend by the way - the 2nd warmest year in temperature record history). We can predict the number of typhoons that will occur in the Pacific this year. We can forecast that China will have very intense precipittaion this summer (forecast made by the Chinese Met Agency this winter, and proven to be true).
So, not as bad as you think.
More importantly, you are confusing climatre and weather. No, we cannot model weather as well as we would like, but we can model climate rather well actually. That John Kettley can't tell you what the weather will be next week doesn't mean that we can't model what the climate will do for the next 50 years. Yes, the climate is an almost infinitely variable system, but simplification is possible.
"Global Warming hysteria is along the same path. " I am sorry, but it isn't. Yes, there is hysteria and a lot of dud information. However, the difference between the Aztecs, your mum, etc is that there was no scientific evidence. This time there is.
"Let's have some good Science for a change" I assure you that there is a lot of good science (including, I hope, my own). There is some bad science too. That the results don't confirm your preconceptions does not mean that it is bad science. Indeed, I do wonder quite why it is me that you are accusing of wearing blinkers!
"Time for a nice cup of Earl Grey". That we can agree on!
Happy to continue the debate on here or privately, or for you to contact me directly.
Dr Dave (Petley)
Department of Geography
Durham University