Well, like I say, I don’t know anybody that fundamental, so I’m not saying you’re wrong. I do know a lot of climate sceptics, though, most of who are not noticeably religious, and lack of 100% certainly is most definitely not the reason they doubt.

Supposing what you say of fundamentalists to be true, I do wonder if the reason might not be the other way round. They’re religious, and used to statements of certainty, and therefore they demand 100% certainty. For most people I think the religion comes first – from their upbringing in a particular community – and their worldview subsequently gets fitted around that prior belief. I’m not saying it’s so – just a possibility worth considering.

If you started from a position only of seeking certainty, and then decided whether to be religious or scientific in your outlook, I think you might well go for science. As they say, would you fly in a plane designed by theologians?

And because they need that absolute certainty, they take the answer that gives them what they want.

I have to stress that’s just my reading of it, influenced in part by “Voltaire’s Bastards”, among others.

But since science – when correctly applied – provides more certainty than any other method, wouldn’t that imply they ought to believe in it more than most people?

I don’t know anyone quite that fundamental, so I couldn’t say whether you might be right or not. Still, I can’t help thinking it would be better than having no requirement for having any answers to anything.

“Models are based on ever-improving understanding.” – No doubt and I’m all for research which furthers that goal. In the mean time, we need much more transparency as to the model inadequacies and level of uncertainty in these projections so that policy makers can make realistic cost/benefit assessments.

But I think that one thing you might want to consider is that religious fundamentalists deny climate science and evolution because they have a need for certainty. They must have concrete, 100% guaranteed answers to everything. Since science cannot provide this, they disbelieve the science.

It’s this lack of tolerance of doubt, lack of tolerance of uncertainty, that is a central thesis of “Voltaire’s Bastards”. I recommend it to you.

Virtually none of the commenters would be paid by the fossil fuel industry, while many of the climate scientists are. The fossil fuel conspiracy theories are ad hominem, untrue, and equally applicable to both sides.

There’s a lot more wrong than just not having shown 100% proof. If scientists predicted a 98% earth-asteroid collision, they wouldn’t be hiding the data or calculations, seeking to prevent them being scrutinised.

5) And makes inaccurate global warming comments on FreeRepublic hourly.