Richard Drake
Yes, I think you are right forewarned should be forearmed. With the coming of the internet and things like this anyone with a bit of intelligence can have a good idea what the next few days weather will be like. Being prepared for the events you describe will only last as long as living memory, just like financial crashes, unfortunately.

The MO weather forecasts for 24 hours are pretty decent too, 5 days out not that great yet. Richard Betts will no doubt give a positive spin on 5 day forecasts. The media over hyping things is a bit of an issue as far as I concerned.

I'm not sure about carbon emissions though.

Richard Drake, I'm firmly in the sceptical camp for CO2. I do think that knowing history and using modern technology should allow better preparation for events like this winter. As weather is a series of extreme events joined together by a series of unusual events then the current blame everything on Climate Change sound bite strategy is difficult to deal with; especially as the public memory of what has been said and by whom is on a par with a goldfish.

We're talking settled science after all, aren't we?

Feb 16, 2014 at 10:46 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

No, the science will never be settled. You can never "prove" anything with science, since there is always the possibility that the next experiment will show that your theory is wrong.
This is why Dame Slingo describes the recent storms as consistent with global warming, but does not express certainty.

Even well established theories such as relativity arnd quantum theory are recognised as imperfect and are constantly being retested in new ways. You need quantum theory
to design a computer and relativity to make satnav work. Despite their usefullness, we know that one or both are wrong. Where they overlap they disagree on how reality works.

To take a legal analogy, the link between the current storms and climate change can be established " on the balance of probabilities", but not yet "beyond reasonable doubt". It can never be proven.

If you want certainty, go to a politician or a priest. If you seek certainty in science you will never find it.

Rhoda

I would agree that claims of certainty are unscientific, which is why you very rarely hear them from scientists. There is the odd eejit.......

Non-scientists are another matter. For a politician certainty is a necessity. Think how damaging any appearance of doubt can be, let alone a U-turn.

Religion also demands certainty. Faith in God is obligatory. I always remember the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who lay awake wondering if there was a Dog. :-)

Sceptics can have the same problem. They demand certainty as a propaganda tactic or exaggerate the uncertainty. Some will know it is impossible and some will not.

Consensus is another matter. If you look at climate scientists as a group you will find general agreement on the basics, and endless argument over the details. They will agree that there is uncertainty, and on the approximate limits of that uncertainty. The scientific debate continues, but the boundaries of that debate are getting narrower.

Similarly you will not be able to describe next month's household budget exactly, but will have a pretty good idea.

You would probably be annoyed if I suggested that became you could not precisely define your budget, you were incompetent. I might even make falae accusations that you would present false invoices to demonstrate your competence.

Is that the sort of debate you want to have about global warming?

Confused I might be, but t'was my ken that the good gentlefolk in the year of our lord seventeen hundred and thrice, did the obvious by go burnin a brace o witches and formatted much useful and consentually pleasing astrology charts, so that we might Devine the true order of the heavens intent. Have you learned nothing in three hundred years.

Talk of burning witches reminds me that the Royal Society was founded in 1660, in an era when elderly women were still being routinely burnt at the stake, and the King still had a Court Astrologer.

In the aftermath of a bloody Civil War, it was founded by worshipful brethren like Elias Ashmole and Sir Robert Moray. The founding members remarkably came in almost equal numbers from both sides of the war. They sought to ignore conflict, superstitition and ideology, and improve their society with evidence-based scientific research. It was a purposeful and practical way for them to explore the hidden mysteries of nature and science, without fear of being burnt as heretics.

How sad and ironic that 350 years later, the current leaders of Royal Society seem to be reverting to superstitition and ideology as the best way of explaining uncomfortable things, and warmists are crying out for sceptics to be treated as heretics.

RICHARD DRAKE
KIETH MACDONALD

The troubling aspect of witches was there was so much proof of their existence: since we all know that witches turn people into frogs, one just has to look at the number of frogs to get an idea of the number of witches. 350 years later we are confronted by the same perspective ie. look at the statistics for global temperatures and that provides proof of the dangers of emissions - obvious init (providing you just nod your head when you see someone else doing the same). It just gets a bit confusing when those naughty witches start turning people into ants or some other item as a means of obscuring their devilry. The emissions demons are equally adept at throwing confusion into the well ordered nature of things.