> They take 20 highly non-linear climate models, assume normal distribution of the results per-year (think about that for 5 seconds), and come up with confidenc

> They take 20 highly non-linear climate models, assume normal distribution of the results per-year (think about that for 5 seconds), and come up with confidence intervals. Like I say, "stunning". Thank you for following up - I'll be sure to follow up your links etc. at the next possible opportunity. I'm still wedded to the notion that climate change, global warming etc. "is" real, and caused by human activity, but I'm very much open to scepticism about how science is deployed day to day. EDIT I don't think it's fair to describe climate science as being "in the humanities" just because it can't have the same precision as physics. It is still concerned with the empirical gathering and analysis of information. Perhaps it is going beyond its capabilities, similarly to economics (hence my comparison there) but like economics it does still does possess a great degree of predictive power and pedagogical value.