The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/09/13 16:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/09/2013 15:05, Terry Fields wrote:

snip

It is clear that climate science is in its infancy.

Not according to the fanatics it isn't.. its proven and absolutely
correct to the point where they can just shout down anyone that says
otherwise.
That is why that book is so delicious. It cites THOUSANDS of (peer
reviewed) works on climate change by hundreds of proper qualified
climate scientists, ALL of which cast (some) doubt on the IPCCs core
assumptions.

If someone asks you 'what is causing climate change then?', you merely
need cite the book and say 'pick any one, (or indeed several) of the
competing (or indeed, in many cases complementary) theories in there'.

I love this part:

"If public policy to address global warming is to
be made rationally, it must be based on scientific
forecasts of (1) substantial global warming, the
effects of which are (2) on balance seriously harmful,
and for which (3) cost-effective policies can be
implemented. Armstrong, Green, and Soon (2011)
refer to these logical requirements of policymaking as
´the 3-legged stool¡ of global warming policy. A
failure of any leg would invalidate policies. To date,
there are no evidence-based forecasts to support any
of the legs."

--
Terry Fields