Thanks, Jedimaster. Pleasant and accessible post, with which I generally agree.

I describe myself as 'agnostic' about AGW, because after four years of reading and study, and thirty years of reading and assessing projects in all fields other than medical science (actually, a few of them, too in Canada), I'm simply not sure that AGW is dangerous (I think it is probably real, if earth resembles closely a black body and most other things are equal). I continue to ask questions, and continue to be reasonably unhappy with what purport to be answers.

Cheers.

Jedimaster and Don Aitkin

Hear, hear!

Alas, I'm not optimistic.

We all theoretically agree that science ought to be based on evidence, and that a scientific theory ought to be tested on the basis of the factual correctness of its predictions.

So here are a couple of pieces of evidence from my reading this morning that the catastophic global warmers have to answer. I owe both bits of information to Roger Pielke Sr's blog.

First is some work on ocean temperatures. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/research-issues-on-the-missing-heat/ No-one is having much luck finding the missing heat that is supposed to have gone into the oceans, and if they can't then the models don't work too well.

Second is a proposed way of testing Spencer's contention that global warming is mostly driven by ocean circulation and is relatively insensitive to CO2 forcing. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/two-hypotheses-with-respect-to-lower-tropospheric-temperature-anomalies-current-status/ Pielke observes that the facts at the moment appear to favour Spencer.

If the atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than the models assume, we don't have much to worry about. It's the sort of work that people like Pielke are doing that Ridd claims ought to be better-funded. I think he's right that we need more of it, but I'm not quite sure who would be the funder.

Less bluntly than before, the author and the Australian Environment Foundation are engaged in attempts to break the scientific system in order to have it produce the results it wants. Or more correctly, trying to undermine public confidence in the world's leading scientists and institutions; they are incapable of publishing genuine peer-reviewed science. Attempts to achieve a true understanding of climate is something beyond price - in all it's fundamentals already achieved - and the cynical and misguided efforts of Peter Ridd and the AEF to devalue it deserve only condemnation.

GrahamY and others interested: As I said, I'm not an expert in this area, but reasonably well schooled in science to understand a lot of the complex explanations. It didn't take me long googling in RealClimate.org (May 2010) to find a robust debate on this issue:
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/).

Essentially, it seems to be the same climate vs weather issue that gets thrown endlessly into the debate, ie trying to make definitive statements about long term changes from short term data. It is the same sort of issue for which Phil Jones was maligned. Quote:

What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/)

Paradoxically, it is quite likely that pro-AGW-ers will point to the present Queensland floods as evidence of climate change and the denialists will use the short-term-fluctuation rebuttal. Similarly, the Tea Party claims that the Arizona Assassin is a "statistical outlier" and not, as "Liberals" assert, an inevitable outcome of extremist rhetoric.

I guess that the point of all this is that most people are uncomfortable with the mathematics of probability and statistics and are constantly looking for swallows to make their particular summer, while denying others their inferences from solitary swallows.

For those with an open mind and time to spare, try reading "Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, 2008.

The dishonesty of the pro AGW proponents is not subtle.

Ken Fabos, without any basis whatsoever, makes blatant accusations against honest scientists who merely wish to bring out that hated nemesis of AGW, the truth.

They are “engaged in attempts to break the scientific system in order to have it produce the results it wants”. There is no basis to assert this against honest scientists, but another example of the activities of the AGW proponents has arisen with further proof of subversion of the Met Office to produce the results the AGW confidence men want.

It gave a correct prediction, to Cabinet, of the severe winter in UK 3 months before it happened, while publicly predicting a mild winter, to back up the alarmist nonsense of 2010 being the hottest year yet..

“In October 2008, the Met predicted "a milder than average" winter, only for Britain to experience its coldest in 10 years. The following year, the Met predicted that "the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue" – only for Britain to experience the coldest winter in 30 years. This winter has proved the coldest since records begin”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/07/met_office_forecast_not_forecast/

The peer review corruption of the AGW pushers, and the pressure by them on previously reputable journals to publish the “peer reviewed “ nonsense of the Climategate miscreants, while stalling and blocking publication of the honest science is disclosed for all to see in the Climategate emails.

Ken backs these miscreants and makes a scurrilous unjustifiable attack on the honest scientists. If he is capable of shame he should feel it when he reads the article on the sorry state of the Met, on the above site.

Since I request Ken each time I reply to a post of his to produce any scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, I will make the request again. If you cannot produce it, Ken, could you at least spare us the nonsense you post, based on asserted science which does not exist.