The best antidote to this kind of scaremongering coincidentally appeared today as well:

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic

Once Glikson can answer the issues raised in this article I will consider taking him seriously. But like most alarmists he seeks to soft-pedal real issues of fraud and malfeasance. For instance, the point is not whether the IPCC underestimated or overestimated glacier melt: it is that they continued to use a date which they knew to be incorrect for over two years, because it had much more scare value. Glikson's graphs are only as good as the data going into them; and we have reason to believe that the data is very dodgy indeed. To the ever-growing list of inexplicable (and always upwards) temperature 'adjustments' in the US and Canada we can now add Auckland, Darwin and Mackay. Where next, I wonder?

Thank you Andrew, this started off quite well until that is, I got to the bit where you called me a “studiously ignorant climate change denier”.

I’ve just read on OLO, the article by R. Sean Randolph and another by Shann Turnbull. Both seemed informative and balanced and neither saw the need to abuse their readers.

There are four well documented types of human intelligence, IQ (academic quotient), EQ (emotional quotient), SQ (social quotient) and PQ (personality quotient). I can well imagine that you possess a high IQ. In the interests of your own balance, might I suggest you do some work on the other “three Q’s”

Quite why so many “scientists” feel the need to abuse non-scientists is beyond me, probably because I’m studiously ignorant. Nothing I suppose to do with the fact that it might be you that has failed to convince?

I would love to hear your response to Jon J’s excellent link.

spindoc,

You're a bit thin skinned aren't you? Where did he mention Spindoc?

There are far more of the type of nay sayers he's referring too than you.
I too get frustrated with the wantonly ignorant. Those that use Plimers book as holy writ yet won't countenance his being scientifically examined/critiqued. Ok for them to criticise but not in return.

There is at least one site I can point you to where the anti AGW element won't consider any other interpretation or literature unless it supports their thinking.

One respondent to me cited the the Danish pre conference suggestion as proof absolutism of a world government conspiracy!

Scientifically, there are issues with JonJ link. Some of the assumptions the author uses are dubious. He starts from known then jumps to unsupportable conclusion.

As we have discussed before if someone wants to rip a thesis down first they must understand the the theory in it's entirety including its science. Clearly the author doesn't. his question are based on a piece meal approach.

For a more detailed explanation ask the forum on Real climate and see what they say.

Spindoc

I saw this cartoon and immediately thought of you - your ears must really be on fire given your (real or imagined) high profile in the zeitgeist.

http://newmatilda.com/files/imagecache/cartoon_homepage/images/FKspindoctorate.jpg?

Ever noticed how much those favouring action on pollution and waste tend to use science, as exemplified in this article by Glikson than those who cast aspersions?

Lord Monckton anyone?

I have read the piece recommended by Jon J and consider it excellent and logical. Doug Hoffman does a very good job of showing just how complex the climate of the earth is, and how poorly we understand it. He makes a good case that CO2 is not much of an issue, and provides a good account of the feedback assumptions needed by IPCC to make a scary case for CO2.

I too would like to hear Andrew Glikson's responses and comments on that article. However, on past performances here at OLO, he has a pattern of putting up a scary piece, then running a mile, never turning up to answer questions or make comments in response to comments made.

It's very difficult to take Glikson seriously when his claims are based on belief rather than science. He wants you to believe that a correlation between CO2 and temperature means that the former drives the latter when (a) the evidence of ice cores suggests temperature leads CO2 by hundreds of years, (b) when temperature is clearly a determinant in CO2 absorption and (c) since 1958 when CO2 measurement began it would be drawing a long bow to claim a correlation between CO2 and temperature for anything but the 21 years 1977-1997.

What's more, Glikson's thesis is ultimately based on the output of climate models but table 2.11 of the WGI part of the IPCC's 2007 report shows that many climate forces are poorly understood. To anyone, except perhaps the studiously alarmist, this low level of knowledge is a very good reason to think that accurate climate models cannot be created.

Finally and again laughable, Glikson tells us that the PH of oceans declined between 1751 and 1994 by 0.075 (8.179 to 8.104). Oh really? Where did he get the 1751 figure from (and to 3 decimal places to boot) and does it pretend to be a global average when it is probably from the North Atlantic? Does the latter figure also pretend to be a global average and if so, how was it detrrmined? According to specialists in the field, the natural variance in pH in the oceans at any one time is around 0.3, perhaps even a little higher, and 0.075 is well within that.

Really I think Glikson should called "Andrew the Alarmist".

There are many AGW supporters that seem to subscribe to the belief that skepticism is caused by skeptics, when in fact it is the consequence of a failure by the promoter to convince. The reflective angst of AGW supporters seeks to blame the “skeptic” for not being convinced. Curious?

Skeptics are born with built-in “nonsense detectors”. Like many skeptics I’m sure, I have visited almost every link, pro and anti that has ever been posted. Then I get examinator telling me that I should visit Real Climate. Why would examinator “assume” that I’m not a regular visitor to this and many other similar sites?

Perhaps it needs to be stated again that I’m not a scientist however, I have visited any and every site to which I’ve been directed on AGW, scientific or otherwise over the last four years.

I admit that last year I almost “crossed the floor” when I learned from CDIAC just how much carbon we have consumed since 1850 however, I could not accept any link with AGW.

I then began to understand the sources of my skepticism. When reading or hearing the various arguments offered, I was reacting negatively to nuances. These include but are not limited to the degrees of: emotion, rhetoric, arrogance, people, processes, evangelism, openness, sarcasm, exaggeration, proselytizing, judging, assumption, name calling, maturity and politicization.

To validate my negative responses, I revisited many of the sites and arguments, for and against AGW. My skepticism has very little to do with the science, perhaps because I’m not a scientist, it does however, have much to do with the message, the people and the almost subliminal nuances.

Every case I revisited “for” AGW is riddled with the nuances that triggered my skepticism. The cases against AGW certainly have a degree of such nuances but nothing like the same scale.

As the post Copenhagen reality begins to sink in, I’m increasingly comfortable with my skepticism.

Continued:

Continued:

The Guardian UK this week launched an almost hysterical “experiment”, a 12 part book on-line, 11 articles by Fred Pearce no less, all filled with mitigation and excuses for what has gone wrong for the AGW case. Fred Pearce seems to have missed the fact that his mitigation and excuses are needed because they did indeed get it wrong. It is “drama queen” responses like this that make skeptics more skeptical.

This conjures for me, a picture of Fred Pearce with no horse, a broken lance, a tattered pennant, grimy face and staring eyes as he leads his weary remnants round the carnage, mentally replaying the battle they just lost.

Meanwhile in NZ, NIWA has finally admitted that they do not have the adjustments that were used to show warming, when the raw data showed no warming at all since 1850. The NIWA report was used by ministers to back NZ’s ETS legislation and it is now admitted to be “invalidated data”. The adjustments will be re-created (under scrutiny) by NIWA and might yet show warming. However, the “other” adjustments left NIWA with Dr. Salinger (Salinger’s Secret) when he moved to the UK. I bet we could find Salinger somewhere at the CRU? This makes skeptics more skeptical.

The catalogue of IPCC errors, probity failures and people credibility makes skeptics more skeptical. The tainted relationships between researchers and CRU make skeptics more skeptical.

Andrew, I’ve just given you an open and honest appraisal of what I, as a skeptic, can respond to and what I won’t. This may apply to other skeptics, if so you have the secret to gaining some serious yards and placing skepticism where it belongs, in your front yard.

If you are genuine, capable and willing, I for one am listening because it is just possible that it is your presentation that is blocking the message.

Spindoc, a well written post.

Something bothers me though, because we have been through this before. You say;

<< Meanwhile in NZ, NIWA has finally admitted that they do not have the adjustments that were used to show warming, when the raw data showed no warming at all since 1850. The NIWA report was used by ministers to back NZ’s ETS legislation and it is now admitted to be “invalidated data”. The adjustments will be re-created (under scrutiny) by NIWA and might yet show warming. However, the “other” adjustments left NIWA with Dr. Salinger (Salinger’s Secret) when he moved to the UK. I bet we could find Salinger somewhere at the CRU? This makes skeptics more skeptical. >>

Can you please post a link to this "admission"?

Notwithstanding, what you say seems to be contradicted here:

http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/101834/7-Station_Temperature-Series.pdf

As I have pointed out to you before, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the NZ warming trend ‘go away’. This well known group of ‘sceptics’ were the ones tampering with the data (they did this by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site). (un)Surprisingly, they "released their revelation" just prior to Copenhagen.

What’s worse, it was they who claimed that NIWA wouldn’t explain how NIWA adjust the data for site changes. That is simply untrue, as a reading of the above link will show.

Oh Dearie, Dearie Me, Aren't we all having such fun squabbling about which way we're going down the tube. Its rather like being at Terry Prachett's Unseen University. Let's leave some of the speculative climate science aside for a moment and get our priorities straight, if that's possible amongst the argy-bargy of whose brain is bigger. The facts are that all the gunk -oh, sorry, such an unscientific word - we put into our environment has exhausted the oceans' ability to cleanse and has nowhere to go, so is starting to accumulate on the sea bed, the planet's fish stocks are in freefall, we CONTINUE to despoil large tracts of arable land, either by patently outdated agricultural methods or by covering them with bricks and mortar, and are STILL in the process of denuding the planet of forests. Aaaaaaaghhhh! Just when are you lot going to remove your brains from your nether regions and come together on the one thing that IS self-evident. We are messing the only nest we have, and we have nowhere else to go. Effective answers to AND action on those problems will necessarily flow on to reducing carbon footprints anyway.

Sigh...I am almost looking forward to the next piece of Antarctica falling off.
I went to the link and it is a good study in why scientists should stick to their area of expertise.
His theories are excellent FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and show him to be articulate and convincing...He even covers some real science quite well, but his arguments bear little relation to real climate science. This sort of sceptic starts out by saying how complex and misunderstood things are, then proceeds to their own, easily explained "understanding" to prove some prediction *they* can make! Years of cooperative science undone by a lone genius...yeah, right.
A smart man's ego is not to be compared with years of patient evidence gathering and culling of "common sense" ideas that happen to be wrong.
What I find most annoying is the wilful ignorance of the data coming in these days: Sea levels are rising, temperatures are rising, ice is melting. This is all measurable and verifiable.
However the "sceptics" would prefer to believe that weather bureaus world-wide are engaged in a conspiracy. Reminds me of the good old "burn the astronomers" reaction when comets appeared.
Let's all get stuck into the politicians..they deserve it, but can the real sceptics please ask for more science...not more Fox News type propaganda. Surely if the science was bogus then at least *one* country would be shouting it? Instead we see the same players that saw WMDs, using the same tactics that we saw from big tobacco and the anti-evolutionists ("teach the controversy").
I work quite closely with the people who quality check the weather/climate data coming in from around Australia and surrounding oceans. The idea that they (and hundreds of others around the world) are part of a conspiracy is quite silly. Equally silly is the writing of "intelligent amateurs" can be considered convincing against decades of work by hundreds of scientists using many tools including supercomputer models (the same ones sanity checked by doing weekly/monthly/yearly weather prediction runs), hundreds of weather stations plus thousands of satellite measurements.
IPCC is international politics: it gets messy.

ozandy - you write as if all the skeptics point to incorrect data or fabrications and all the AGW believers all point to and reiterate pure science.

Please don't do the big "sigh", and ignore one of the biggest complaint of skeptics - the massive exaggerations and doom predictions.

Even our dear ABC Science reporter, living treasure,Robin Williams with his massive exaggeration of 100 meter sea rise by the end of the century, admitted on JJJ under pressure from the compere who would not let it go, (good for him, he was not intimidated) that "you have to exaggerate to get people's attention"

That's not science mate, that's bullshyte. It needs to be exposed, by Fox and others otherwise you end up with poodles like The Age, who no longer seem to understand the objective stance of journalism.

So you build a climate (ha) of distrust out there, with constant predictions of doom and exaggerate consequences.

I note when some green glam group spokesperson waffles on in articles on OLO, all the supposed scientists don't all quickly point out they are speaking rubbish or exaggerating.

If you were as even handed in pointing out the errors and faults in AGW puff pieces as you are in attacking skeptics, we might get somewhere.

Until then, learn to live with distrust and the perceptions of the public at large that something smells here, and it's not the fish!

To understand where Glikson is coming from you have to familiarise yourselves with post normal science, as postulated by Jerry Ravetz and honed by Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research located at the University of East Anglia, home of the CRU email leaks.

There is an excellent posting by Jerome Ravetz at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/, as he attempts to (partially) whitewash the CRU scandal. There is an excellent counter point of view at http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/

Readers are also recommended to view the comments at both sites, especially Willis Eschenbach (23:53:22) at whatsupwiththat.

Both sceptics and alarmists alike need to understand post normal science. Here is a taste:

“The concept of post-normal science goes beyond the traditional assumptions that science is both certain and value-free…The exercise of scholarly activities is defined by the dominance of goal orientation where scientific goals are controlled by political or societal actors…Scientists’ integrity lies not in disinterestedness but in their behaviour as stakeholders. Normal science made the world believe that scientists should and could provide certain, objective factual information…The guiding principle of normal science – the goal of achievement of factual knowledge - must be modified to fit the post-normal principle…For this purpose, post-normal scientists should be capable of establishing extended peer communities and allow for ‘extended facts’ from non-scientific experts…In post-normal science, the maintenance and enhancement of quality, rather than the establishment of factual knowledge, is the key task of scientists… Involved social actors must agree on the definition of perceptions, narratives, interpretation of models, data and indicators…scientists have to contribute to society by learning as quickly as possible about different perceptions…instead of seeking deep ultimate knowledge.”

The IPCC’s reports into AGW are post normal science.

More rubbish in the name of science, raredog. Rubbish it is, & science it sure aint.

I have no objection in scientists going off & playing silly buggers. They can go for it any time they like, except when the public purse is paying for it. There is no reason why we should subsidise their games, & we should definately not depend on their ethics. That is a recipe for disaster, in view of the exposed trend.

qanda, thank you, but I can’t agree that the NZCCC “made the NZ warming trend go away”. Their scientists only had the raw data which, whilst it showed no warming, would have to be legitimately subjected to an SOA to reflect anomalies and variables.

The link you provided has already been reviewed and rejected by NZCCC; this is explained at the link shown.

(See results posted Feb. 7 at nzclimatescience.net).

NZCCC has repeatedly requested the SOA that was applied to NIWA’s report in order to reproduce and validate NIWA’s report. You will note that NIWA has now acknowledged that they don’t in fact have the SOA for this series. NIWA has agreed to develop and apply a new SOA and when applied, it might indeed show warming.

In the end it’s not about science, it’s about the probity and processes by which the science is achieved. If as a skeptic, I cannot see the probity, I cannot accept the results. I’m not a scientist, but I do understand process engineering. There are many who don’t understand the significance of the process and consequently are too ready to accept “invalid” output.

I emphasize “invalid”, not necessarily “wrong”.

qanda, I’ve tried so hard to explain how I personally respond to such comments as a “studiously ignorant climate change denier”. examinator would have us believe that I’m “thin skinned”. I spent 45 years in multi-national corporate in 29 countries and attended 5 Uni’s; do you really think that makes me thin skinned?

My post was not an excuse for skepticism; it is an open and honest explanation for it. Why I, and perhaps many more like me, am uncomfortable with how this science is produced. Every single revelation recently hitting the public domain at the moment shares one single factor in common and it is not flawed science, it is flawed probity.

If you really wish to understand skepticism, just read the post by Dr Merlyn and tell me honestly if you feel such comments increase or decrease skepticism?

Caution! Once you question the probity, you will instantly become a skeptic

Pouring all this vitriol upon each other is just piss-in-the-winds of change. ALL science is speculative and flawed, because it is done by flawed humans, and facts are only that until superseded by new findings. Climate science is very-very new, and particularly complex, and because it draws upon a variety of disciplines is NOT a discrete science. It is very experimental and there will be NO absolute facts for quite some time to come. Few, if any scientists are seriously trying to hoodwink anyone into complying with species death, they just come at it from different angles. But while all you inarguably bright people are spending time and energy arguing whose science is better, the things we could be fixing straight away are going to hell in the proverbial. What a waste of energy all this is.
To be sure, robust debate is important in all discourses, and there are vested interests with huge investments that are trying to screw the last profits out by demanding absolute facts before they call time on some of their outdated enterprises. These are the valid targets of a concerted reasoned debate by all concerned individuals, and NOT each other! Reading all this cranky stuff makes me feel like Mother in a Kindergarten.

dr merlyn, are you a doctor or is that just a web handle?

"the things we could be fixing straight away are going to hell in the proverbial. What a waste of energy all this is."

No one disagrees that we could all pollute less and it's a good thing to do.

I am skeptical of the some of the science and of many of the goals of people on the AGW side of the "debate".

Whether we do or don't agree CO2 is a pollutant or an innocent bystander, does not justify - councils stopping land approvals for building a beach house (Victoria), that we should distribute our wealth to poor nations, that we should be taxed, be vilified for "not believing" (e.g. DENIER!), that the minds of children are polluted with eco rubbish about the world ending, the list is endless.

So I disagree that it is "a waste of energy", and like many others will stand up to bullies and pompous loudmouths who try to intimidate others into their way of thinking.

I'm happy to do some things for the environment, but not everything being demanded is benevolent to my way of life - I'd like nuclear reactors, dams, good roads, safe public transport, but I digress.

I will not though, fall into the stupidity of trying to second guess nature or gamble on our future, the cry we have to do something does not mean we have to do something stupid, just for the sake of action.

It needs to be considered action, not some idiot idea of wanting to stop the climate changing, or setting the world to some particular average temperature, or taxing for the sake of the look of it, or the most stupid Quixotic claim, to control the climate - I mean really!

Amicus, I can only admire and echo your sentiments. Can you or any other OLO’ers explain why we so called “skeptics/deniers” are so willing to open up and articulate our concerns only to be met with the vacuous invectives and abuse from the likes of Dr Merlyn?

They could be suffering the first phase of the trauma cycle, that of “anger and rejection” (I’m loathed to use the official wording, “denial”). When are the AGW supporters going to open their minds to the possibility and debate that they could possibly, or might have been “had”? More importantly, how?

There is no consolation, at the moment, for those who have invested so much in the social phenomena of AGW. Even less consolation for those who feel we might have been distracted from “real” issues related to our treatment of our planet, this really is unforgivable.

Since you mention it, I also have two grandchildren who are obsessed and distressed by the dread of exaggerated conservation claims. They really are quite frightened. If I were to meet someone in the street, who was responsible for that level of juvenile fear, I would, and I’m sorry to say this, wring their miserable $#!*ing necks.

The last time we saw this level of “child indoctrination” was Hitler’s “Brown Shirts” in 1939. The next time WWF asks me to put money into their tin, will see me arrested. NGOs’ have much to answer for.

It is easy to account for some scientists protecting their “recognition in their field”, the intelligentsia protecting their “vanity”, the politicians protecting their “legacy, votes and political reputation”, academics protecting their “funding and institutional Brand Value” however, what does the AGW supporting public have to gain? It Baffles me.

Yet the public has become supporters of the “great lie”. Could this be a consequence of the non-scientific public being involved in a scientific debate, or that we have missed the fact that it has been “converted” into a political debate?

When will the AGW supporters acknowledge that there are “two sides” to every debate?

Amicus, stay with the program!

spindoc

I had to do a bit of digging, but is this:

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/OIA%20Ltr2%20NIWA%20to%20NZCSC.pdf

the “admission” I asked you for? If not, could you please provide it.

_____

You say the NZCCC has reviewed and rejected the NIWA document

http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/101834/7-Station_Temperature-Series.pdf

and is explained in the post dated 7th February here

http://nzclimatescience.net/

This really bothers me because what I linked to is dated 9th February ... 2 days after it was supposedly reviewed and rejected by NZCCC.

_____

In here you will find links to both raw and adjusted data that the NZCCC says they couldn’t get (literally and figuratively I suppose)

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear/seven-station-series-temperature-data

They also explain why data is adjusted, what data is adjusted, when and how it is was done.

_____

spindoc, putting your sceptic hat on - don't you think it a tad unlikely that;

• 4 independent bodies in

• 4 different countries - New Zealand, Russia, Canada and Australia

• all concurrently AND just prior to the big kahuna in Copenhagen

• all discovered a ‘fraud’

• in each of those country’s temperature records

• and that there is strong opposition in each of those countries to tackling climate change?

Would like your thoughts.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his "facts" (Senator Daniel Moynihan):

Polar melt:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=989
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/26/nature-dynamic-thinning-of-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-glacier/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32985250/ns/us_news-environment/

Arctic sea ice cover(1870 - 2009):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seaice-1870-part-2009.png

Averaged sea level change:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

Mapped localised sea level change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/ssh_trend_map1.gif

Atmospheric CO2 levels (from about 1960):
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

Longer term CO2 levels:
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/CarbonDioxideGraphic11.jpg

Conspiracy theories and ad-hominem are not substitute for science.

Thanks Andy1 - chew on that spindoc, Amicus! Thing is, we know this planet is a dynamic system and changes are happening. Our civilisation developed through one of the most benign periods of this planet's surface, but that was never going to last. I recall reading of ancient ice core sample studies in a Scientific America 25+ years ago. Core samples showed evidence of climactic upheavals, wild temperature fluctuations preceding Ice Ages.
Whilst we can't be sure of how much current changes derive from our activities, how much are due to other influences, its time we started putting energies into thinking about how its going to affect us, how to adjust and adapt to inevitable change.
Its not about scientists' scare tactics, though I imagine some feel they have to beat the drum loudly because there's resistance to their message. There will always be exceptions, but scientists I've met are genuine, decent humans, if a little nerdy, obsessed with their inquiries. Its common sense, thinking positively, about how we can work together, strengthen communities, develop resourcefulness in our children and how we can adapt our society.
And I do apologise if I seemed 'abusive' - it wasn't meant that way. There was tongue firmly placed in cheek. It just seemed to me that you were attacking the wrong targets, really did sound like the Unseen University - anyone read Terry Pratchett? Well, maybe you should! Lighten up guys! I do have a doctorate, in Adult Education, but am a bit of a polymath with a good conceptual intelligence that can grasp the gist, if not comprehend exact sceince.
However, I must take exception to the misplaced aggression aimed at 'greenies', who are just mostly people who love this planet and are horrified by the mess we are making of something so beautiful, but are trying to do something positive about it. Some may be misguided, but no one has a unassailable claim on the Truth, We are all just flawed beings trying to cope. So please, don't go beating up on any earnest young conservationist you come across.

Thank you Dr Merlyn,

At last some words of wisdom, instead of the ubiquitous toxic language directed toward those concerned about the future of their children and about other species.

Scientists and environmentalists simply request a reduction in polution, for reasons based in climate science as well as direct observations around the world.

The >320 billion tons of carbon emitted since 1750 (moe than half the original inventory of the atmosphere) did not go into outer space ... Deforestation removes the nature protection of the biosphere. Arctic Sea ice is disappearing fast, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice has increased, sea level rise is accelerating, climate zone shifts leave large regions in a state of semi-permanent drought, the intensity of hurricanes is increasing, oceans are acidifying.

For an authoritative up-to-date report summarizing climate change developments refer to:

"Climate Change 2009: Faster Change & More Serious Risks"
by Will Steffen, climate change advisor to the Australian Government.
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks-final.pdf

qanda, mitigation, excuses and old links, already shown to be invalid are not going to reverse that which has already been admitted by NIWA. They admitted it, if you don’t like that fact, take it up with NIWA.

How you could possibly confuse the “posting date” of any link with the original date created baffles me?

I did caution you, “Once you question the probity, you will instantly become a skeptic” I should have added, if you are not ready, don’t go there.

You really do need to “read” and “comprehend” the report.

“Our objective was achieved upon Tim Mahood’s admission on 29 January that “NIWA does not hold copies of the original worksheets.” Our study is therefore a success, because the scientists who made proper requests for the data and adjustments that will let them replicate Jim Salinger’s work now, for the first time, have a proper answer. The answer, of course, is that “we don’t have them”, and that will lead to further questions or whatever.”
“Our scientists searched through the other scientific papers that NIWA cited in their impressive-sounding press releases. None of them contained the actual adjustments.”
“They told us where to find the adjustments, citing obscure papers from 20 and 30 years ago. Bizarrely, they alleged that we already “know” or “have” the adjustments and claimed that a couple of emails they had sent contained the adjustments.”
“We found that the two emails they quoted were not sent by NIWA, and they weren’t sent to the NZCSC. They came from Dr Jim Salinger, who sent them to two independent scientists (who happened to join the Coalition about then) right at the time (July 2006) when the Coalition was created, before it had considered the New Zealand temperature record. So NIWA made it sound as though these two private emails were proof that they had disclosed the adjustments. But it was poppycock. So they didn’t come from NIWA, weren’t sent to the NZCSC and didn’t contain the promised adjustments — there couldn’t be much more wrong with them.”

Dr. Merlyn, panic and confusion, but no embarrassment?

Spin it, or doctor it, all you like spindoctor (very appropriate).

I see the following (repeated for others' benefit) takes you out of your comfort zone.

Putting your sceptic hat on - don't you think it a tad unlikely that;

• 4 independent bodies in

• 4 different countries - New Zealand, Russia, Canada and Australia

• all concurrently AND just prior to the big kahuna in Copenhagen

• all discovered a ‘fraud’

• in each of those country’s temperature records

• and that there is strong opposition in each of those countries to tackling climate change?

Here's my thought on it:

No, it not unlikely. In fact, there is a concerted campaign by certain groups and individuals in very high places (with vast amounts of power, money and control) to maintain the status-quo. Indeed, there is intense lobbying and funding going on to ensure the required action in tackling human induced climate change is thwarted.

The New Zealand Climate Change Coalition is just one cog in a very big wheel. Its people like you with their eyes squeezed tight, and hands clasped to their ears, that can't grasp the bigger picture. The reason, you don't want to.

nuff said.

I can answer your questions qanda. The unlikely scenario you paint for spindoc is based on the assumption that the four independent bodies in four different countries all discover a fraud concurrently prior to Copenhagen is wrong; I suspect it is just that you heard about them prior to Copenhagen. The adjusted NZ figures have been known about since around the middle of last year, the Russian figures about 15 months ago (though with a press release prior to Copenhagen, admittedly), the Australian figures even longer, and the Canadian figures I’m not so sure about.

There is plenty of information about this already available online, as well as some excellent research done by E M Smith – you know how to use Google. It is only recently, through the pressure of Climategate that more details have emerged on the blogosphere.

I suspect that the coincidence to which you elude is as likely based on rational people attempting to elicit information regarding temperature adjustments (upon which the whole edifice of AGW is built), which has not been forthcoming, as opposed to “people like you [spindoc] with their eyes squeezed tight, and hands clasped to their ears, that can’t grasp the bigger picture.” I can assure you that I grasp the climate science big picture very well (in addition to its small details) and there is much there that is unverified, unfalsified, obfuscated through omission, deliberately false or just plain wrong.

Above, I posted some links about post normal science. If you genuinely wish to understand what is going on then I suggest you read the links (and all of the comments). Therein you will find the heart of this debate (and a very good read as well). It will challenge you qanda but there again people like you “can grasp the big picture”. All the best

.... and meanwhile, Raredog, humans continue to pollute, destroy and deplete all natural resources.

Ah well, business as usual.

Whilst I think you have overstated what humans do Severin I am somewhat in agreement with your outlook - solving some of those problems is where I concentrate my efforts but alas, all we humans impact on the environment.

My problem, from my studies over many years now, is that the AGW hypothesis and subsequent orthodoxy does little in solving your heart-felt response. By framing AGW or climate change with our environmental problems, so that scepticism of the AGW hypothesis implies ambivalence about these problems the AGW debate inevitably becomes a smokescreen that covers serious issues of environmental degradation, for instance, deforestation and its impact on near-surface air temperatures and the water cycle.

By attempting to compartmentalise me with your "business as usual" approach you close your own mind to other possibilities. I thoroughly recommend reading the links I posted about post normal science - it really is a good read. That is my two comments for today. Best wishes to you, too.

drmerlen "However, I must take exception to the misplaced aggression aimed at 'greenies'"

There I was taking exception to the overt hatred of skeptics and the catchall of anyone who disagrees, "DENIER".

Now we get the changing of definitions even, so 'greenies' are by your definition non polluters, and "DENIERS" are polluters, so simple, why didn't we all get that before .. because it's simplistic crap.

If you wish to engage with people, being impolite and downright adversarial is hardly the way to do it, Andy1.

"Scientists and environmentalists simply request a reduction in polution, for reasons based in climate science as well as direct observations around the world. " no you don't "simply request"

You exaggerate, you scream "DOOM!" at every opportunity you tell us the world is going to hell.

To claim it is a "simple request" is an outright lie,isn't it?

After all the billions spent trying to skew the science, scare the children, tax the life out of us and bring about changes to the world's economy, how dare you sum it up as a "simple request" from "caring" (but clearly happy to lie and fabricate, hide things, cherry pick and deceive" nice people.

You really do live in a dream world.

You clearly only post to denigrate skeptics, you appear to have no intention of trying to engage, why not just post to some friendly blog you all seem to love like, what is it climate something or other? Where you can all stoke each other's .. egos.

qanda, after twice avoiding a visit to the link I provided, and twice asking for the “admission”.

You asked again?

Can you please post a link to this "admission"?
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 10 February 2010 1:46:46 PM

So I did and you and you asked again?

The “admission” I asked you for? If not, could you please provide it.
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 10 February 2010 1:46:46 PM

So in addition to the link, I posted an extract containing the admission confirming that NIWA has issued an admission in writing that they got it wrong, and that skeptical scientists had indeed proved it.

I did not spin it, the NZCCC did not spin it, and the skeptics on OLO didn’t spin it. The issue is no longer about spin, it’s about facts.

I can imagine how upset you are to learn that you fell for the spin from NIWA. That is however, your problem. Don’t take it out on us, take it up with NIWA.

I repeat, if you are not ready to face reality, then don’t. But you really have to stop “hissy fitting” at others because you were had.

To the doubters here, do any of you recall Andrew Glikson's opening paragraph?

"The release of more than 320 billion tons of carbon (GtC) from buried early biospheres, adding more than one half of the original carbon inventory of the atmosphere (~590 GtC) to the atmosphere-ocean system, has triggered a fundamental shift in the state of the atmosphere at a rate of 2ppm CO2/year, a pace unprecedented in the geological record with the exception of the effects of CO2 released from craters excavated by large asteroid impacts."

While it may be possible to argue finer points of science as to what the exact figures and dates are, some posters here appear to be of the view that such a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere is some random event, outside human control and activity and that is not melting the polar ice caps...

Really!

I'm no scientist, but even I get that.

Bias or denial seem to be at play in the skeptics' posts here. Their blinkered attitudes could be all it takes to destroy what has been a good planet.

Raredog, I read your links (and the comments), thanks.

Following ‘post normal science’ to its logical conclusion, progress will be stifled by over indulging the ‘wannabe’ scientists, or “extended” peers. Don’t get me wrong, there are some very well intentioned people out there, but they are not specialists.

Behind the scenes there are very many specialists, all contributing to how humanity should best adapt to a changing climate, and how best to live in a more sustainable way. These people are not stupid, and they really do come from all sides of the spectrum.

In this ‘age’ of computer technology, many people have access to a vast amount of information, and that’s great. But just because they have access, doesn’t mean they understand the information they have access to. For example, testing and applying complex technical nuances related to the adjustments required to the satellite temperature record following a re-calibration of ‘on-board’ instrumentation due to a changing orbit or aging sensor.

Re: Smith - yes, some people completely misunderstand the processes and data provided by the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) – what they do, and how they do it.

There is a concerted campaign by certain groups and individuals in very high places (with vast amounts of power, money and control) to maintain the status-quo. Indeed, there is intense lobbying and funding going on to ensure the required action in tackling human induced climate change is thwarted.

Fossil-fuel based energy and automobile industry lobbies, right-wing think tanks, etc, have been known and shown to distort evidence, doctor reports and otherwise cast doubt on the science. Big tobacco did the same and produced many “scientific” studies “disproving” the link between smoking and high incidence of lung cancer.

Not all climate sceptics or media reports fall into this category, of course, and several valid issues have no doubt been highlighted. But the increasingly shrill chorus in the current campaign against the IPCC and its core findings does 'smack' of orchestration. If it walks like a duck, smell like a duck and behaves like a duck - it probably is a duck.

Thanks for that Quanda. This issue stirs up a hornets nest in all sectors, raises flight or fight impulses, hackles on the alpha males or elicits the impulse to play ostrich when something seems that scary, and they feel so helpless, or can not comprehend living otherwise than their current gadget-augmented comfort. As I've argued previously, most if not all, scientists and 'green' commentators on climate issues are genuine, decent human beings deeply concerned about how to live sustainably and with equanimity.
However, now I want to extend an olive branch to the opposition. I think I know one of the critics on this site - Jon J - and they are also a genuine decent human being and a scientist of integrity whom, and I'm speculating here, has been driven into this cynical position through overexposure to less than commendable 'green' tactics.
So I urge those working on all facets of the climate change agenda to chill on the warrior stuff, stay genuine and decent, and treat everyone else as you'd wish to be treated - we're all in this boat together. So you don't need to ask, as the boy in 'The Road' does, "Are we still the Good Guys"?

Many thanks for your considered reply qanda, and also to Dr Merlyn for his comments. Whilst there are some aspects of post-normal science that I like I do not support the notion per se, especially the idea that "in post-normal science, the maintenance and enhancement of quality, rather than the establishment of factual knowledge, is the key task of scientists".

This comment, in my mind, is not what science is about (even though quality is not defined) but I suspect it is this notion that has driven climate science to rely so much on modelling, projections and conjecture. If the IPCC reports had suggested these "grey" notions (for instance, the timing of the melting of the Himalayan glaciers) were only possibilities as a part of post normal science, rather than implying that the science was settled at the 90% plus confidence level, then they might not be having to fight a rear guard action. Unfortunately, catastrophic climate science was sold to the public as hard normal science, which now leaves its practitioners in the unenviable position of fighting for their reputations and careers if they do not wish to be seen as part of a fraudulent process.

Judging by the coverage Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia’s CRU, has had in the British "Daily Mail" over the weekend then it is only going to get messier and messier. Eventually our mainstream media is going to have to start asking these hard questions too, especially as the post normal science notions of catastrophic climate change have penetrated so deeply our institutions and political discourse. Continued.

Continued: Regarding your comment about "a concerted campaign by certain groups and individuals in very high places", I think that cuts both ways – self interest and preservation will always take precedence. Dr Merlyn’s "genuine decent human being[s]" are found on both sides of the equation. Both sides, I think, have been used, in the post normal science context, as part of a Hegelian dialectic to introduce a global carbon trading market, initially.

In the March 21, 2007 edition of "The Australian" Paul Kelly wrote about then British Chancellor Gordon Brown: "My ambition is to build a global carbon market founded on the EU emissions trading scheme and centred in London" to which Kelly adds, "The bill will create statutory carbon budgets that will be managed "with the same prudence and discipline" as financial budgets. For Brown, the carbon will be counted like the pound sterling."

Kelly summarises this position as the "debate is no longer just about the environment. It is about economics, culture, ideology and foreign policy. The old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain). The new debate is about policy solutions."

In the world of post-normal science with its "extended facts" and reliance on "grey literature" Paul Kelly stays on message. Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, quoted in "The Guardian" newspaper sums it up best by saying that, "…'self-evidently' dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking . . . scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence." Readers can draw their own conclusions.

Looks like this conversation has exhausted itself, so this is just a postscript if anyone reads through - I was mistaken and the 'jon j' on this topic is not the one I know.

Doc Merlyn (welcome to OLO)

You have quals in adult education? Why not join the thread

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10060

and add your tuppence there?

I can't help but feel there is a growing anti-science movement out there. If we can't educate the adults, how can we be expected to educate those that follow in their footsteps?

I have been trying to do exactly that in this conversation quanda, scored some points, seem to have lost others. Have a huge respect for science, see it as the 'noble art'. However, I do recognise the narrowing of focus also has the tendency to develop a myopic world view, and so often a naive isolation from wider implications. I deplore the way this characteristic can be corrupted for mercenary or political purposes, and think perhaps moral philosophy and science in history should become core units in all science degrees. Perhaps scientists might be protected from such misuse by a professional body?

Perhaps then Doc Merlyn, can I invite you to look at the work of Nick Maxwell.

http://www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk/

Whilst I don't contribute much, I find his readings (and current work) fascinating and well worth pursuing.

As to OLO threads, they are just opinion pieces and have a tendency to go off on various tangents quite often. So much in fact, that after a few days, you could be having robust discussions about the inflation rate in Brazil when the core article was espousing the need for childcare in the Northern Territory :)

Oh, science as a 'noble art' is a contradiction in terms, is it not?

Well, to me, the dedicated inquiry into the miracle of Life and this miraculous Life-bearing capsule we call Planet Earth is, and should be, revered as the Noble Art. We know that the truly profound discoveries have occurred not in the lab but in moments of creative revelation. To provide a moral compass as a guiding light and inspiration by including such elements in science degrees would certainly solve a lot of current problems, and make science more appealing. Similar to politicians, I think many scientists start out with genuine higher motivation, but then become degraded by the system they enter. This is because they, like all of us, need to earn money to live. So we need to look to how we support science. But above all, we need to remember that scientists are just fatally flawed human beings, like the rest of us, doing their best in a dynamic, ever changing world, and all science is speculative, facts only so until disproved by new findings. This is the creativity of the Art of science, and the profundity of its purpose is what makes it Noble.

postscript: in case anyone's still out there, on considered reflection, I've decided I was being naively obtuse, deliberately projecting my heartfelt desire for intelligence and decency onto a much more flawed system than my romanticism was prepared to accept. Yes, I admit it, there are unscrupulously self-motivated people on both sides of this argument, which is the ultimate tragedy, as they, along with the religious maniacs who have prevented effective world population control, will prevent us with dealing intelligently with the looming problems we face.