John Nicol, you roll with loaded dice:

Australian Climate Science Coalition
American Climate Science Coalition
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
International Climate Science Coalition
Australian Environment Foundation
Lavoisier Group
Icecap
JoNova
etc

While their mission seems admirable, they are only merchants of doubt.

Jedimaster:

I went to the Realclimate website and read Gavin Schmidt's piece. It seemed well judged to me, though there were some things I thought could be added, so I provided a post myself. Maybe it will survive moderation.

But the last remark in your second post puzzled me: 'the system will surely break if scientists try to live double lives, where in one they pursue evidence and in the other they zealously advocate'. I am sure that Peter Ridd would agree, as I do. What you say is exactly why some agnostics and sceptics criticise AGW proponents, like Hansen in the USA and Karoly and Lambeck here. It seems to me that they do just that. Have I missed something?

You also remark that 'part of the reason for code-names in OLO was to keep the focus on the issues, the facts and the opinions that might be deduced therefrom, rather than on the authority that someone might assume from their social or institutional position'. I wasn't aware that it was a requirement, and I wasn't sure, either, whether you were criticising John Nicol or Peter Ridd, or why. For what it's worth I use my own name because I am happy to stand by what I have written, and because I think that anonymity allows people to say things they would not say at all, if their real names were used. I do not suggest that you have done so in this case. I'm just puzzled.

John Nichol, Your right I do pour scorn on this, but I do for very valid reasons. It born from knowing that there is a difference between scientific debate and political debate. Mainstream climate science has moved on from the debates that climate deniers want to have, how many times does the same ground have to be trod?
I gave creationism as an example because it smells the same to me. It is not hard to find working scientist that believe the world was created by the Christian God about 6 thousand years ago. you can go to the website and find that their well written and cited blogs and articles all sound quite reasonable to the general public. The fact you will also get quite a few politicians who are convinced by the creationists that mainstream science has got it all wrong further demonstrates my point.
So tell me should we take creationist POV’s into account, should mainstream scientist always be at the ready to go over the same ground over and over again.
Next question then can you explain to me how the Anti-global warmers operate any different to the creationist? I’ll add here that many of the young earth creationist are nice respectable people, they are just wrong and will never get it no matter what their shown.
I’ll make a bet with you thrown up any argument against the science of global warming that has been made by anybody who thinks global warming is not happening and I will show you a exact example that has been used by creationist. Or how about show me a single fact brought up by AGW that has not been addressed by climates scientist. I’ll give you a hint if you take up the challenge don’t make a fool of yourself put some effort into it.

Don Aitkin: Personally, I would prefer a consistent policy on code-names- either all-on or all-off and an ethos on OLO that kept the focus on how facts can inform opinion. As it is, some people use code-names because they thought that was the rule when they joined; some need to, as their professional positions might be compromised without anonymity; some simply hide behind anonymity to escape accountability as they hurl epithets indiscriminately; some use their real names, with presumption; some use their real names because they are indifferent.

In the present situation, it looked to me that John Nicol "wanted to know who I was", beyond the strength of my ideas. That's why I try to either give examples or references to support my assertions, like a good little physicist should.

I've never said that AGW-deniers had a monopoly on zealous advocacy. I suspect I'm one of the very few people who paid money to see both Monckton and Hanson last year. Both audiences seemed (code for "I didn't do empirical testing") to be mainly zealots -either pro or anti-AGW.

The point that I'm trying to get to here is that very few people are in a situation to be anything like zealous about the AGW issue- pro or con- they simply do not have the expertise to assess the data, even if they had access to it. I include myself in that category, despite my training as a physicist and 40 years involvement in research and solar energy. However, my experience (again, code for "I didn't do empirical testing") suggests to me that "science" is far from broken and, ideas don't last more than a couple of years (ie funding cycles) if they don't have substance. Given that, if I were a betting man, I would put my money on AGW.

Of course, it could all be proved to be erroneous tomorrow- that is the strength of modern science- it must be amenable to disproof.

Which is unlike the denialist position, which seems (same code) based wholly on faith, rather than reason and appeals to personal authority (including peerage).

Further to Peter Ridd's doubt about climate-skeptic Professors Carter and Plimer being given employment at the AGO (now the Department of Climate Change), the AGO would be unlikely to re-employ Dr David Evans who worked there from 1999 to 2005. Evans, a specialist in feedback processes and complex systems analysis, concluded that the evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing him to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

Evans concluded (see reference below) : "The western climate establishment supports the concept that global warming is man-made, and disparages all other theories. They issue reports that overwhelm their readers with detail, written in dense language that is difficult for a layperson to decode. Basically their message is authoritarian: “we are the experts, it is very complicated, you can’t understand it, so just accept what we say.”

But their message is nonsense. Everyone is familiar with temperature, and everyone (except the “politically sophisticated”) knows that siting official thermometers near air conditioners is cheating. The reality is that the temperature and other data has become unfavorable to their climate theory, so they hide behind complexity and authority instead of simply telling you what is going on.

While their theory seemed plausible 15 years ago, new evidence has proven the influence of CO2 to be greatly exaggerated. There is a germ of truth to their theory, but our emissions are not nearly as serious as they make out. The western climate establishment does not want you to know this, presumably for fear of losing the considerable income, perks, status, and influence that has come their way since they started promoting their theory. So they have taken to bamboozling us with “science” ... ".

For the reasoning leading to Evans' conclusion, see his 8 November 2010 paper "Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?" at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.html

Kenny, who thinks global warming is not happening? Try the Climategate miscreant, Phil Jones. He says there has been no global warming for 15 years.

If you mean that anthropogenic based global warming is not happening, then there are more than 30,000 scientists have signed a petition that no action be taken on AGW until there is a scientific case made out for it, rather than the pathetic and unscientific “very likely” asserted by the IPCC.

The boring, well trodden path of the realists is to request a scientific basis from those asserting AGW. It only has to be repeated endlessly because this vital request is ignored. All you need do is cease to assert AGW, as you do, in the same manner as a creationist asserts the existence of God, and you will not be endlessly confronted with your own inadequacy.

I hope I have sorted out your confusion, Kenny. You are asserting the unproven unsustainable belief in AGW, and you somehow think that the people pointing this out to you are similar to creationists. You are the creationist, but with less scientific backing.

I see that the other Ken (Fabos) has been deleted for abuse. I rather enjoyed reading the fulminations of an AGW backer who was bereft of anything effective to say . We no longer have his post as an object lesson.

Thanks for the rundown on David Evans, Raycom, he has certainly been a tower of strength in uncovering the truth of this area, in the murk created by the IPCC and its backers.