In particular, the idea that government has
a) the knowledge
b) the disinterestedness, or
c) the capacity
to direct and control all oxidation and reduction of carbon on the planet, and all human action involving carbon, so as to provide a net benefit, compared with the status quo, is nothing better than a knee-jerk irrational superstition, a re-run of the god-state. The very idea is just a welter of layer upon layer of fallacies of social science.

“That is the main reason why the conspiracy theories are so weird.”
It is a misrepresentation of the argument to claim theories of “conspiracy”, which implies a common agreement to knowingly commit wrong.

Rather, the explanation is a common movement of hundreds of thousands of person with a vested interest in government funding of protean kinds, with significant elements of careerism, interests in forced redistributions, pork-barrelling and blatant corruption.

It arises from the science as follows. The data set is enormous and complex. By itself it consists of nothing but reams of numbers representing historical measurements of temperature by place. These data do not interpret themselves, and in their raw form are not intelligible by anyone. Sensible interpretation requires statistical analysis to bring out the significant aggregate trends, and leave out the insignificant.

But the process of statistical manipulation and aggregation are not merely technical. They are intrinsically normatively problematic. The necessary data manipulation necessarily requires many many value judgments which
a) are *not* supplied by the data or by the positive science
b) are supplied by the individual discretion of individual scientists according to their own lights
c) exercising their individual discretion, in hundreds of thousands of individual operations, in a way that just happens to align with their own interest, surprise surprise,
which elementary social science should teach us to suspect.

" Do I take it from this that no evidence would persuade you that the AGW hypothesis is true? If so, it follows that for you the falsity of AGW is an unfalsifiable proposition - that is to say, that it is an article of faith not a claim based on evidence.".

What, you're suggesting that my scepticism is faith-based? When AGW is the newest relgion? My sceptiocism is based on a number of factors, the major one being that I see nothing remarkable about climate change, as a former geography student at tertiary level, I came to realise that there have been massive swings in Earth climate over the past 10-15,000 years and beyond, without any help from man. I don't see any climate phemomena that are out of the ordinary, given that the instrumental re4cord is so ridiculously short. Warmistas have told us all sorts of things will happen- more frequent and severe tropical cycloes, for one, which hasn't come to pass.

To me AGW and associated carbon trading is a wealth distribution scheme, from wealthy nations to poor, and to creeps like Gore and Pachauri (a railway engineer, for God's sake).

The author obviously has great faith in the climate scientists who preach on AGW.

Foremost among the UK AGW disciples are the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and the Met Office. This morning's Cut and Paste column of The Australian makes some interesting observations about both of these august bodies:

Why did God give us Climategate emails when we've got back copies of The Independent? March 20, 2000:
BRITAIN'S winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters -- which scientists are attributing to global climate change -- produce not only fewer white Christmases but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. According to David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

Nathan Reo in Britain's Daily Express, October 28:
THE Met Office, using data generated by a pound stg. 33 million supercomputer, claims Britain can stop worrying about a big freeze this year because we could be in for a milder winter than in past years. The new figures, which show a 60 per cent to 80 per cent chance of warmer than average temperatures this winter, were ridiculed last night by independent forecasters. Positive Weather Solutions senior forecaster Jonathan Powell said: "It baffles me how the Met Office can predict a milder than average winter when all the indicators show this winter will have parallels to the last one. They are standing alone here, as ourselves and other independent forecasters are all predicting a colder than average winter."

Mayor of London Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph, December 20:
WHY did the Met Office forecast a "mild winter"?

Michael Rowan, I think you might have either missed the point I was making about “channeling” our champions or chosen to ignore it. Since it is crucial to the case I was making I will put it another way. You say your champions are the best because they are “reputable”. If they were reputable they would not have destroyed their own credibility.

You went right back to champions and nominated yours. What you don’t seem to understand is that many do not agree that they are reputable, that’s the whole point.

It is utterly futile to promote your “opinions” based upon the CRU, IPCC, Met. Office and other “august bodies” when they are clearly tainted in the perception of many.

You keep peddling the myth that somehow, if you hit the public over the head often enough, they will agree.

You asked the question what would be <<evidence that convincingly demonstrates that global warming has been caused by anthropogenic gas emissions’? >>

Evidence? What on earth are you talking about? The public wouldn’t know evidence if it bit them on the bum. What is it about “we are not scientists” don’t you understand?

Which now brings you back full circle to the original point, all you will get from the public is Link Wars, so why don’t you send your links and your opinions to those scientists who disagree with you?

Please stop bullying the public. We have a game, we like it because it’s entertaining and the proof it’s a game is in the fact that nobody seems to “buy” the opposition argument.

You agree that Link Wars is a game, but the science isn’t. True, science isn’t a game but it has become a joke thanks to the “reputable” entities upon which you rely.

As I suggested, for those of us who do wish take it seriously, we need to take the proselytizing howling amateurs out of the equation and bring both scientific persuasions together.

The acid test of your science would be to agree to this.

Graham Y: Taking your paras one at a time: 1.how is this a fault of peer review itself? Won’t it also be true of the person’s favoured wikireview? 2. The NS paper is not very surprising, and actually says that publication is part of the process of eliminating error. It is not about peer review at all but the statistical likelihood that a given finding is incorrect.3.Which leaves the next para without support. What peer review does is eliminate the papers whose falsity is apparent to a competent reader, leaving the scientific community to focus their criticism on those that survive the cull to publication. Science is Darwinian and peer review is an important part of process. 4. I did not find that analysis supported by the reviews. No doubt this could happen, but it cannot be typical: science after all does undergo regular revolutions which upset the established view. Think of continental drift theory, or stomach ulcers being caused by bacteria for recent examples.5. I’d rather my doctor took her basis for practice from the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet, rather than wikisurgery. What about you?
Peter Hume.1. Are you really suggesting we stop the public funding of science? And you suggest the supporters of AGW are out to wreck the economy! 2. See my next in OLO. 3. I thought both the Stern and Garnaut reviews did a pretty good job of arguing the social science case. What is your criticism of these? For answers to a)-c) have a look at evaluations of the cap and trade system in the US covering SO2 emissions from power stations, and the reduction of acid rain.

You are right about data, but this is not a fact about global warming but rather all science. The facts rarely speak for themselves. Rather nature’s secrets have to be coaxed from her. A good treatment is Ian Hacking’s Representing and Intervening (CUP, some years ago). And all scientists have a vested interest in the facts coming out a certain way – its called ego. What has this to do with AGW rather than, eg, Millikan’s determination of the charge of the electron (to choose as non-political a case as I can imagine)?
Viking13. 1. I’m not suggesting that your ‘scepticism’ is faith based, I’m offering you a Popperian test you can try for yourself. 2. So where does the theory of AGW assume a stable climate in the past? 3. If your final para is intended as an argument against AGW it’s a non sequitur; whether you or I agree or disagree with the policies that some people say the science should lead us to adopt does not bear on the truth of the science at all.
Raycom. What counts as evidence is not the weather – neither the cold winter in the UK nor the record hot summer in Russia, nor the record floods in Pakistan – but the long term averages. On that basis a prediction of a mild winter can be correct even if it turns out to be cold. Predicting that 6 won’t turn up on the next roll of a fair dice is sound (and will make money in the long run) even if does come up after all.