ant wrote:Evidence? Predictive mathematical models that can never be proven false because the numbers can always be adjusted.

Our predictive ability will never be enough to satisfy you. It is a contingent system. This isn't an excuse, it's a fact we have to deal with. The difficulty in making predictions doesn't mean we're totally wrong. Smart people all over the world are doing their best to try and predict what will happen. Their models make sense, but they aren't anywhere near perfect. The climate might simply remain steady as we pump more and more CO2 into the air. Or it could be worse than our models predict. But neither you nor I are qualified to criticize the models, especially not understanding the tolerances of contingent systems. When you point at a model for a contingent system and say "that failed, we know nothing", do you really think your "aha" moment is more insightful than the scientists working on this issue? It's an insane level of arrogance to think that even in your ignorance, you know better than the experts.

I never said we were totally wrong or im never going to be satisfied, Mr. Strawman.

Are we creating policies that risk placing people in a state of power poverty based on climate studies or climate science?
It's a good question.

If our studies are significantly failing to accurately forecast climate change (who on earth would argue that the climate is not or can not change) thats of the doomsday nature the IPPC promotes, why should we continue to levy heavy taxes on people that cant afford green power?

The IPPC is even now admitting the models they relied on may not be entirely true in that doomsday is not just around the corner and model forecasts were too hot.
I think its something like 70 of their models were wrong. And now the forecasts are being adjusted so that doomsday is now several years after previous projections.

How can you ever scientifically falsify a study?

Why didnt the Pope comment on this:

..,"over the last thirty years (1984 - 2013) the suite of 108 climate model runs used in the 2013 compendium of the IPCC produces an average surface warming rate of 2.6 c per century, while the oberved value was 1.7 c , a considerable difference for so long a period" from Climate Change - The Facts.

So my question to you and your new ally the Pope would be:

The weather is changing, and it will as it always has. But the warming is not as significant as whats been predicted, there's currently a 18 year and counting pause, and our models have been adjusted to extend predictions of warming to happen some time later in tbe future. Just how much we do not know.
Are we supposed to drastically alter economies and risk impoverishment of millions despite all this?

Although what the pope said is a good start, words are only meaningful if followed by some kind of action - otherwise is just words that everyone says these days to attract attention. So if the Pope really wants us to do something about pollution, why not attack the cause of the problem which is: there are too many people on the planet! No people = no pollution! But the Pope did not say anything about reversing his stand on birth control, abortions and masturbation. We will never solve this problem if we promote exponential growth in the earth;s population, like the Catholic Church does.