Kellie
Since science does not supply value judgments, and since policy requires them, therefore climate science provides no justification whatsoever for any policy measure on climate change. The scientistic fallacy is to think that positive science gives normative conclusions; that facts supply values.

It is true that the climate science has been affected by manipulation, suppression, and falsification of data at the highest levels. But still, some warmists say, the substantive conclusions remain unaffected. However until all data and algorithms become freely available to all, we need to exercise a precautionary principle before we conclude that there are not still more, and still worse corruption that is still being suppressed from public knowledge.

There are also much deeper problems involved. Policy means control. The question involved by necessary implication in all policy issues on global warming is: who should be forced to forego which resource, for whose benefit, when, where, why; and how we are to know that the decision-makers have the necessary disinterestedness, knowledge and capacity? Already people in the poorest countries are facing food shortages owing to the diversion of resources on a massive scale out of food production by the best-fed but most fretful people, worrying about what the weather is going to be like in a hundred years time.

Even if the entire population of Australia were exterminated, and all the cows shot (they fart too much), the growth of China alone, in coal-fired power stations alone, would make up the difference in 16 weeks.

Considering the fatal defects in global warming policies as a matter of epistemology, ethics, economics and politics, the defects as a matter of climatology are the least of the warmists’ problems.

The government can’t even perform the simple task of installing pink batts without killing people, burning down houses, increasing carbon emissions, and wasting billions of dollars in corruption. What makes anyone think they can fine-tune the weather of the whole world – without the co-operation of China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.?

The precautionary principle is the opposite of the principle of liberty.

Peter Hume, that is just a cop-out and a miserable excuse for doing nothing. Shame on you.

Kellie, that is an excellent article, probably wasted on those to whom it was intended, but full marks for trying.

David

"almost unanimously"?

Science is not a guessing game. It is not about consensus and agreement. It's about proof.

The climate change alarmists have not been able to provide that proof, and we know that the IPPC, at the very least, has mis-represented too much material for them to be trusted.

Really, scientists aren't scaremongering - you don't have to look far for examples, here's one from OLO, "Carbon dioxide, mass extinction of species and climate change" by Andrew Glikson, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10104

Which part of that is not exagerating and scaremongering .. or do we have a new definition of scaremongering?

I think we have to have a good look at the motives of posters on AGW, are they concerned about AGW itself, or are they just eco activists using AGW as a rallying topic?

I expect all the genuine climate scientists now to stand up for their claims of scientific accuracy and principle and put this article in its place.

After all, they don't want more bad publicity and articles that gild the lily so to speak, or indeed exagerate and cherry pick data.

Now if a lawyer posted on skepticism of AGW, by now we would have had the usual suspects posting what rubbish it is, ow disgusting it is and how dare a non climate scientist post on the subject of climate change. The warmists all display the same eco hypocrisy and penchant to selective outrage.

As an example of half truths I like this one "C02 levels have risen since the industrial revolution and are now rising rapidly" so what, has temperature risen? NO! But is that mentioned, NO! - so this is what .. scaremongering, YES!

The author is unwittingly using the priesthood arguement. Scientists say it is so, therefore it is so. But she is not aware that the priesthood is divided. There is a very substantial scientific opposition to this supposed consensus. The more prominent critics of the IPCC line include Richard Lindzen, a professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts in the US; William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Colorado State University; Roger Pielke Jr, a professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado; and Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA. And those are just the more prominent. I haven't bothered to list to Ausralian critics.
There are many others who can be classified as agnostic such as Carl Wunch, a profossor of Oceonography at MIT.
The author's claim to consensus is simply wrong, but it is also irrelevent. In fact, the scientists could be in complete agreement and still be proven disastrously wrong. Unless there is an established track record of forecasting in the area, counting up the number of scientists for and against a particular proposition is a waste of time, breath and energy. Nor can public policy be based on any supposed consensus. There is no established track record is climate. In fact, there is just the opposite. The British Met office makes seasonal forecasts which have been proved wrong the last nine times out of 10, the last one disastrously so.
If these guys weren't asking us to spend billions of dollars on solutions that won't work, their forecasts of the supposed problem would be laughable.

Dear Kellie, I think you need to review your comment “almost unanimously” because it demonstrates just how ill informed you really are.

Forget or ignore for a moment, the opposing scientific views, just take what the IPCC and Prof. Phil Jones have to say as gospel, especially since you would know what legal advice Jones has been offered for his presence at the UK Parliamentary Hearings.

“Prof. Jones produces a key trend figure of 0.161C (increase) per decade.”

“The IPCC accepts that even the most modern gridded readings contain errors of +/- 0.17.”

“That leaves the “proposed” anthropogenic or “unexplained” warming of 0.051C per decade over 35 years.”

“Jones says a trend of “0.12C per decade is not significant at the 95% significance level”.

“Jones - The 1860-1880 period is only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.”

This “means the “extraordinary” recent warming that calls for explanation is the balance of 0.051C per decade”.

So “with the imprimatur of Phil Jones to the key fact that recent warming is not unusual, the debate will never be the same.”

How can you possibly ignore such well respected science? Or, do you have access to an even more eminent peer reviewed source?

Sourced from “The end-phase of the Climate Wars?
by Barry Brill
March 22, 2010

Dear Kellie,

Your opening remark regarding the so called “precautionary principal” betrays a lack of understanding of “decision theory.” In any diagnostic situation one is challenged as where to locate the threshold level. One side of the threshold the test is positive, the other negative. Every test or battery of tests has four possible outcomes namely: true positive, false positive (FP), true negative, false negative (FN). Judgment is required in setting the FP and TN rates so as to maximise the pay-off. Increase the FP and automatically the FN deceases, or vice versa.

It is clear that you regard the threat of irreversible damage as so serious as to justify an exorbitant high FP rate for fear of that you may miss a positive call. In other words call every test for climate change positive, your FN rate will be zero, but your test will have no predictive value. Do you not care about the monetary and economic costs (including opportunity cost of spending money in more useful ways) of a FP result?

You refer to decision making by a court of law. My understanding is that in civil cases on 51% certainty is required (balance of probabilities) well in most scientific work the level for statistical significance is set at lease at 95%.

There is not space here to discuss the theory of causality in science. However, it could be argued that the seven criteria given in your paper do not meet the criteria given by the late statistician Sir Austin Bradford Hill.

In any case your phrase, “…isn’t there a common sense general argument in support of action……” To re- use your quote from the writings Leah Ceccarelli; your claim is but “sophisticated sophistry.”

Antigreen. There are liars, damned liars and statisticians.

David

When the AGW community starts calling on us to apply the standards of legal proof, it's a pretty clear sign that they are losing the debate. How many people are unjustly sentenced every day; how many are stitched up by overeager police forces and prosecutors; how many evade justice with clever lawyers or simple perjury? Are we to have judges like Mr. Einfeld tell us what CO2 levels are acceptable, I wonder?

Remember the old legal saying: "If you don't have facts, attack the evidence. If you don't have evidence, attack the witness.". The AGW crowd seem to have internalised that fairly thoroughly by now.

The evidence is all out there. It has been accumulating for the past 200 odd years.

David

VK3AUU - you want to be very clear; are you talking about the evidence for climate change which has been accumulating because climate change is occuring.. or are you talking about evidence that human industrial activity is in some way connected to climate change, the evidence for which - such as it is - has been falling apart? The debate is often entirely confused on that point. AGWers think that the sceptics are denying climate change itself, when the point has never really been the subject of debate - the earth has warmed slightly, that's obvious - the argument has always been over what is/has caused the change.

'Scientists aren’t scare-mongering when, almost unanimously in both numbers and disciplines, they describe the challenges we will face with an average global temperature' decrease and we have another ice age.

It was not long ago that the majority of scientist preached this dogma along with many others that have slipped the notice of anyone who has survived the latest brainwashing fad. Be sure in twenty years time we will have another 'consensus'.

Curmudgeon, I am glad to see that at least we seem to agree that global warming is happening but I think you may need to take Runner and his mates aside and explain that to them. Be gentle with him.

Runner, I am still waiting for your reply to my questions about real science and scientists. I'm also not too sure about the scientists to whom you are referring in your last post. Please enlighten us.

David

Seriously VK3AUU, do you really think anyone denies the world has warmed?

The term "denial" refers to people who "deny" that mankind is contributing to the warming via fossil fuels and producing CO2.

The whole premise of CPRS/ETS taxation systems is to reduce CO2, which is why our government has adopted the mantra "stop carbon pollution" as if the air is full of carbon, or soot - CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant.

There's no "proof" that CO2 is causing or contributing to additional climate change.

That's what skeptics have doubts about ..

For goodness sake pay attention, that has been said on OLO on every AGW topic for years, that yes the climate changes but no we're not convinced it's CO2.

We may be contributing to climate change by clearing land and various other means, but that's not what the IPCC and the Carbon taxes are about, they are about changing the climate by reducing CO2, they have even set a 2 degree C limit if you can believe that!

Of course the climate changes, no one "denies" that, except in dishonest AGW propaganda which clearly some people swallow without thinking how stupid it is - really, the climate not change, have you been outside in the last 20 years?

RPG. When I have the time, I could go back through the past 12 months of posts on OLO and find a score of people who deny that global warming is happening. Our friend Runner is just one of them. I suggest that you are the one who needs to pay attention. Sorry.

David

vk3auu .. thanks I look forward to seeing what you come up with

the climate not changing, how quaint

Absolute certainty may be lacking within honest science but within dishonest denialism the certainty that the science is wrong verges on religious faith. The pronouncements of it's high priests are never to be questioned even - especially - when they contradict each other as they do.

Climate change is as sound as any physics based science and the primary mode of attacking it isn't the presentation of credible alternative science but in denigrating it's practitioners. To dismiss and ignore the considered opinions of the scientists who professionally study science in favour of the unfounded belief that what people do can't change the climate is dangerously irresponsible.

When Monckton was out here he was flamed by all and sundry, Bob Carter is continuously flamed as is anyone skeptical - you play the man constantly.

"The pronouncements of it's high priests etc etc" and of course the high priests of AGW, e.g. Al Gore - how many climate scientists have come out against Al? So you all believe what he says, the High Priest of Warming?

How about some facts, who contradicts, as if IPCC doesn't make errors eh, but those errors are OK aren't they, allowable within the faith! Why is that?

I don't have any high priests of skepticism, I'm on my own, so your theory that there are leaders and followers is defunct as well - I know you all WANT TO BELIEVE that skeptics are as organised as warmists, but they simply are not. You apply your own values to skeptics and imagine they are just an opposite to you, with a belief system,we are not.

"Climate change is as sound as any physics based science" when did climate change become a science, Freudian slip I believe?

You twist things as we keep accusing warmists of, To dismiss and ignore the considered opinions of the scientists who professionally study science in favour of the unfounded belief that what people do can't change the climate is dangerously irresponsible." No we don't say that man does not contribute to climate change, we say, show us the evidence it is CO2.

You are trying to change the ground rules, typically of a warmist, and doing that is undermining your case as you all flail around trying to find a way for your environmental activism to be supported by your warmist beliefs.

Skeptics quesion whether CO2 is responsible for additional warming, and how much of it? How much is natural, how much has an unknown cause?

Climate Science knows everything there is to know about climate doesn't it, there are no unknowns, Ken are there?

Do you follow the activist line that, well, even if CO2 is not responsible, it would be good to clean up our act?

Well put Ken. Nil illegitimus carborundum.

Rpg, why would it not be good for us to clean up our act, sooner rather than later when it may have aready hit the fan? What is wrong with erring on the side of caution?

David

vk3auu, Visne parten mei capere? Comminus agamus!

There is nothing wrong with cleaning up our act, very admirable and I'm all for it - but that's not what this is about is it?

When the going gets tough on proving CO2 is causing additional temperature rises to the natural climate change and warming, you all grope for this handle.

It's like the accusation that all skeptics must be right wing pollution mad corporate paid fanatics, more propaganda fromt he AGW camp, and that's why you guys have a problem with your "message", it's all about attacking the man and not the ball.

Like Ken accusing us of having "heros", we don't you do, Al Gore, Hansen, Prince Charles, Pres Obama, etc.

The subject at hand is AGW .. not environmental activism. If you want to admit that the whole AGW belief is just a vehicle for environmentalism, it would be a good start, we could all do with some honesty in this debate couldn't we?

Erring on the side of caution is admitting you have no confidence in your position of CO2 induced heating, and that you are using it as a lever to support your eco aspirations.

Try to stay focused, when you say denier, it is your sides derogatory term for skeptics of man made contributions to global warming.

Found anyone yet who denies the climate changes?

rpg, I think you’ve stirred up some interesting psychology here. You make a clear case for disconnecting climate change from AGW.

The problem for David and Ken is two fold. It was the AGW’ers who started the shift from AGW to human induced climate change to just climate change, mostly because the case for carbon induced changes has weakened significantly. Secondly, climate change is a widely accepted concept, so they now find themselves “violently agreeing” with half of what you say. The other half is devoted to back tracking, trying to retrofit carbon causation with that which seems acceptable.

I think the rage against skeptics is a diversion and should be accepted as part of their trauma. We have to ask why focus on skeptics when Phil Jones himself has acknowledged, under oath, that what warming has so far been “measured’ is within norms? This is precisely what skeptical scientists have been telling us.

By ignoring what has been said by Phil Jones and pointing the finger at skeptics, we are seeing a level of denial of astonishingly hypocritical proportions.

I think it’s time Ken/David challenged the “amended” Phil Jones gospel before launching another foray at skeptics.

To quote the classic Monty Python skit, “this is an EX-PARROT”

>> The problem for David and Ken is two fold. It was the AGW’ers who started the shift from AGW to human induced climate change to just climate change, mostly because the case for carbon induced changes has weakened significantly. <<

Spindoc is not a liar, nor is he that stupid ... he just deliberately disorts and spins.

Check out the Bush Administration's tactics on "climate change" in a memo by Frank Lundtz

About 3 mins 40 seconds in.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02s490q72&continuous=1

Spindoc typically twists and 'doctors' the facts - it was the Bush Administration who took on the policy advice: "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change"

Science good enough to convince National Academies of Sciences isn't enough to convince amateur experts therefore it ain't happening? Like some pre-BC philosopher, famed for his persuasiveness, got told as he was dragged away - we aren't going to listen. Whilst proof of all the key components of the whole are there - the absobtion and emission characteristics of gases through the various crucial climate processes to the conclusion that ongoing warming can and should be attributed to human emissions - those that refuse to listen will keep insisting there is no proof and no conclusions can be made. And they'll dismiss even the proof of those key components. For example Plimer's nonsensical claim that atmospheric CO2 is rising because of undersea volcanoes gained wide acceptance from those who will believe smoke stacks and exhaust pipes aren't responsible for CO2 rise just to have another argument to make. Didn't matter that it's obvious nonsense.

The hottest decade on record continues to be described as a period of cooling by those who are happy to believe - without proof - the old orthodoxy that people can't change the climate. That not one, but all indicators of global warming are showing a warming trend is passed over in an ongoing effort to distract, cause doubt and promote delay. And there is no real contender for alternative "natural" climate change; denialists can't even agree and don't care. Climate science denialism doesn't require any sceptical scientific appraisal of evidence to conclude it's all natural - proposing anything except human induced cause is good enough.

It's disturbing that so many people buy into the idea that thousands of scientists and scientific papers are all wrong but clowns like Monckton and mining company directors like Plimer are right - but it's far more disturbing that political leaders with full access to the scientific advice available choose to ignore it for the sake of the votes of the biased and misinformed. Worse that they actively encourage public misinformation just to keep that voter base on side.

Ken, I can't remember who it was that said, the easiest & quickest way to convince a "National Academy" of anything is to wrap a 100 dollar bill around the finger doing the pointing.

Who ever it was must have spent some time around climate "scientists". It seems to work pretty well at the CSIRO these days too, going by their recent rubbish, & the BOM.

Haven't these blokes been looking at what is happening in the UK, or do their masters still live in hope?

Come to think of it, their masters have proven themselves pretty dumb, recently.

Ken - Who said Plimer and Monckton are right, you say they are wrong - fine, no problem. I've never claimed "anyone" is right, just that "I" am skeptical.

Please don't assume the way you think is common to everyone.

So if lots of scientists say a particular thing, and only a few say something different, the majority has it?

That's not science, that's politics, science is not a democracy.

If the science was so clear, if there were no doubts Ken, there would be no scepticism, so it's not the skeptics "fault", its the scientists fault if it is anyones for not having clear proof of CO2 raising temperature in recent times - don't shift the blame like this, it is not supportable - prove the case.

BTW - How many scientists actually research the CAUSES of Climate Change and how many research the EFFECTS?

Lots of scientists now line up from other areas to attach the words "and the effects of climate change" to get funding.

So of those thousands of scientists you claim all say the science is clear, how many are directly involved and how many indirectly?

Have a look at the IPCC figures on all those scientists.

Ken and vk3auu are both environmentalists and so relate AGW to their belief systems, you appear not to have questioned the premise of the claims - there are many about AGW, some are just complete BS, few actual climate scientists point this out - if they were honest they would point out when people are just scaremongering and doom saying - by not commenting, they include themselves in that side of the debate that uses such tactics.

spindoc - I have always separated AGW from CC, a lot of people are evangelical about the environment, AGW is something they can join up to with like minded people against the people they believe "bad" - see how often skeptics are accused of being polluters, right wingers and somehow being paid for being skeptics.

What has that to do with the debate about AGW and CO2?

rpg, that you have always “separated AGW from CC”, yes, I agree and I am supporting your position.

You ask <<What has that to do with the debate about AGW and CO2? >> The comments I made were directed at Ken and David and their efforts to re-bind AGW to CC because CC is now more widely accepted than AGW.

IMHO AGW and CC are not connected, we both agree on that. I was supporting your view, not attacking it.

Perhaps I was being too obtuse, you might wish to re read my post?

Regards.

VK3AUU

'Runner, I am still waiting for your reply to my questions about real science and scientists. I'm also not too sure about the scientists to whom you are referring in your last post. Please enlighten us.'

These are the scientist I am referring to in regard my last post

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

Just in case you did not read it the first time

'Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974)'

Hopefully you are now enlightened by the climatologist who 'are agreed' in global cooling. Would you consider these real scientist?

Personally when taught this crap at school most could smell the rat. Unfortunately with global warming dogma and funding many can't.

spindoc, no I was saying, not very well obviously, what has "skeptics are accused of being polluters, right wingers and somehow being paid for being skeptics."

to do with the debate, other than to try to imply that anyone who doubts the AGW stance must be immediately and personally attacked.

The AGW believers show their form when they immediately and without provocation then start to accuse any skeptics of being aligned with Plimer, Caret and whomever else, as if that justifies their stance .. probably go to too many skeptic hate sites.

More and more AGW believers are now showing their true colors, that they are environmentalists first and AGW believers opportunistically because it lines up with their position.

I have no problem with better energy sources, helping others and generally trying to do things better, but I do not like this class war crap that anyone against AGW must be a right wing, rich, polluting anti green.

It puts me off the whole green/eco movement though, since their philosophy seems to be to attack anyone who disagrees - there is no compromise position for them.

What do they call it, the green halo syndrome, so you can look down your nose and sneer at others since you're green and better than them .. hmmm, sounds like religion doesn't it?

rpg, thanks for the clarification, thought we must have crossed some wires somewhere. I’m with you all the way.

A religion? Yes. It also bears all the “hallmarks” of post modernist deconstruction, break it into little bits and attack each bit separately on “moral” grounds.

Interesting that we’ve not had much press coverage on the French announcement that they have “canned” their ETS?

I can not be certain of course, but the evidence is growing day by day that the great global warming swindle otherwise known as the scam of the century is about to be cast into the historical dustbin of forgotten and outrageous scares.

The question of the day; what will the doomsayers think up with next?

Global warming is a global problem; France cannot do it alone - neither can we.

Given the inherent stupidity of the species, I'd say we're stuffed.

Sorry, deniers, I think it's you guys sucked in by people saying what you want to hear and you don't know what's credible science and what's not. You are free to keep on denying the scientific basis for AGW even as every indicator of global energy balance shows a warming trend and in spite of the high priests of climate change denialism continuing to fail completely to show it's all or even significantly natural. Except to people like youselves. But you can blame Climatariat bias for failing to take any/all of these failed ideas seriously and continuing to choose the science from the leaders in their fields than off the passed over losers. The latest from McLean, Carter and co was to use a cheap statistical trick to take away the warming trend in global temp data, compare it to (the non-)trend in ENSO and getting a match. Wow. They successfully proved that they are incompetent or dishonest or both. And that's the high end of climate denialism! They promote the fiction that they do real science. But I'm sure lots of people who don't know better will call them brilliant and insightful and hail their paper as the end of the "hoax".

So I'll go on taking science off the institutions and scientists that actually do climate science. They haven't backed off anything. When the vast majority of them are in agreement it's not because of any conspiracy or group-think bias but because the science is almost certaintly correct. Relying on their detractors; the think-tank paid-for opinions and biased bloggers for a fair, true and sceptical analysis is pure delusion.

An accurate account of the status quo Kellie Tranter but we can’t let the scientific facts on industrial CO2 (the progeny of fossil fuel carcinogens, mutagens and teratogens) screw around with the pseudoscience propagated by corporate villains, scoundrels, criminals and miscreants who profit from human misery, can we?:

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/pseudoscience2004.html

Protagoras, a very good article written in language that even the most scientifically illiterate of our OLO friends should be able to understand. Thank you.

David

vk3auu - I see you challenge other people to answer your questions, "Runner, I am still waiting for your reply to my questions about real science and scientists. I'm also not too sure about the scientists to whom you are referring in your last post. Please enlighten us."

So can you answer mine, which you did commit to

"RPG. When I have the time, I could go back through the past 12 months of posts on OLO and find a score of people who deny that global warming is happening. Our friend Runner is just one of them. I suggest that you are the one who needs to pay attention. Sorry.

David"

I'm always happy to be shown to be incorrect, so in your own words.

Please enlighten us.

Also have a read of what I said, i.e. pay attention, I said people do not deny the climate changes, yet you have changed that to Global Warming .. there is a difference.

Who are these people who say the climate does not change, or have you just assumed because they are "DENIERS!", that definitions/propaganda from AGW websites holds true?

Can you actually show where runner denies the climate changes?

I am paying attention. Sorry.

You're welcome VK3AUU.