A Grad Scientist speaks:

 A grad-level Meteorologist speaks.  He is a professional scientist with Environment Canada:

• Owen,
  I've assembled a "brief" reading list for you, consisting of two parts,
  A. Climate science, AGW.
  B. Physics, cosmology, philosophy of science.
  
  Nils
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  A. Climate science
  
  i. Cosmic rays and clouds - the real agents of climate change?
  http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
  
  - fascinating science that has been ignored, for the most part, I think, because it has the potential to substantially alter the priorities of the climate change issue.
  
  ii. A short(?) rant on climate modelling
  Recall the conflict of ~120 years ago between old-earth geologists and the 'establishment' physicists, 'led' by Lord Kelvin. The mechanism of nuclear fusion was not known, and physicists tried to explain a young age of 20M yr for the sun using known physics. Their weakness was a lack of full understanding of the relevant mechanism(s). The geologists had facts - i.e. the rock record - on their side. Fortunately the physicists were honest enough to admit their shortcomings after the discovery of radioactivity.
  
  Today, one major weakness of the climate modelers is Cloud Physics. Clouds cover scales from microns to many kilometers. Clouds are undeniably a HUGE feedback mechanism in climate, but that mechanism has been eclipsed by the relatively MINOR effect of the so-called greenhouse gas CO2.
  
  Current and atmospheric models do not precisely model the formation of clouds. They assume that if the air is sufficiently humid and the air motions are so-and-so, there will be clouds and/or precipitation. This works reasonably well for short-range weather forecasts (<5 days). But the small systematic errors will over longer time scales, lead to large errors in, among other things, the energy budget.
  
  It is possible to 'tune' the model so that it appears to simulate the 'known' climate. But how well is the state of atmosphere known? Are the observations reliable? And even if we objectively assimilate and analyze reliable weather observations, can we be certain that we haven't introduced some bias or error into the analyses? After all , the analysis model is essentially the climate model. How modellers have tuned their models may and does depend on their own biases. You can get the "right" answer for one problem using the wrong method, but is it correct for other problems?
  
  Knowing what I know from my education in science, and after years of working with atmospheric models, my view is this:
  
  Climate has been changing at all scales - global, regional, local - since the beginning of the earth. To insist that the most recent observed changes are solely the result of modern western civilization's activities is simplistic and just plain wrong.
  
  Regardless of what the models may indicate, and what the climate is doing now, insisting that CO2 reduction measures are the solution - or even that we must do something to 'stop' climate change at all - is about as rational as throwing sacrificial virgins into a volcano to stop it from erupting.
  
  Unfortunately for us all, the AGW proposition has become a racket-state-religion. Either you are a "believer" or a heretic, to be ridiculed and condemned. Everyone is subject to the tithe (taxes used to subsidize unprofitable "green" energies). Those who 'sin' too much can purchase indulgences (carbon credits). Companies can either get on board and try to soak up some of that green subsidy, money, or relocate...
  
  iii. "The Deniers"
  http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/pages/the-deniers.aspx
  
  B. Physics, cosmology, philosophy of science
  
  There are some writings by Frank J. Tipler that I have read and found thought-provoking. See his entry at
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler.
  
  An intriguing professor of mathematical physics, he is criticized for his "unorthodox" conclusions. His writing style can be brusk and dismissive. He himself admits that many of his peers have dismissed him as a crank, although he claims they can't actually prove that he is wrong.
  
  From what I can tell, Tipler's most vehement opponents - those who actually make the effort to 'logically' criticize his work - are usually working from their own 'faith-premises', e.g. infidels.org.
  
  Occasionally he points out some of his own errors that he made in previous work, none of which, however, seem to demolish his basic conclusions. At the very least, it is entertaining reading for anyone interested and capable of following his arguments.
  
  Articles
  
  i. Tipler, F.J. (2003). "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?" :
  http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
  - Einstein probably wouldn't have been able to publish his early classic articles if he'd had to go through peer review.
  - Interestingly, Tipler refers to the issue of Intelligent Design versus evolutionary biology orthodoxy, but his points apply also to the AGW question.
  
  ii. Tipler, F.J. (2008). "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics". Social Science Research Network.
  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271310
  - the above web address gives the abstract and links to a pdf of the full article.
  - This article has many sections that touch on a number of topics. For example a section on logic that I found extremely interesting, which criticizes the philosophers David Hume, Karl Popper.
  - Tipler writes that to follow his argument in this article requires no more than "high school" math and physics. Either he's out of touch with high-school curricula, or I guess RDPC was deficient; in order to really follow his math, I was luckily able to resort to my rather rusty 4th year mathphys from Univ of Alberta.
  
  iii. Tipler, F.J. (2003). "Intelligent life in cosmology". International Journal of Astrobiology, 2:141-148.
  http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/intelligentlife.pdf
  - refers extensively to his early work.... especially books (a) and (b) below.
  - brings up intriguing questions on the origins and "goals" of life.
  
  iv. Books I've read (a,c) or started reading(b). Can be bought cheaply at www.abebooks.com
  
  a) Barrow, J.D. and Tipler, F.J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford Univ. Press.
  b) Tipler, F.J. (1994). The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead. Doubleday.
  c) Tipler, F.J. (2007). The Physics of Christianity. Doubleday
  
  -------------------------------------------------------------------
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8578014/New-Little-Ice-Age-in-store.html