So, if the average temperatures were a 'statistical tie' as the hottest, what happened to the 'cooling trend since 1998' we have heard so much about from the sceptics?

That couldn't possibly exist, or have ever existed according to your statistical significance tests, could it?

donkeygod (Saturday, 26 March 2011 11:05:38 AM)

You said:

>> Prior to the millennium, no scientist ever had the hubris to declare any corner of science ‘settled’. <<

You imply that after the millenium, some scientists were.

All I asked of you was to just name one reputable scientist who was.

Your reply (minus the smoke):

>> You needn't look far to find one. <<

I have and have not been able to find any.

So, please - just name one. Again, please link to their comment - we should not take it out of context.

Further:

>> you might note that a fundamental consensus, and one of very long standing, is that you don't accept assertions like 'last year was the hottest on record' unless the measured temperature is at least three standard deviations above the previous high. It isn't. <<

It seems you are confusing fluctuations about a trend with Levey-Jennings control charts.

For the onlookers, all data sets are shown here:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/02/global-temperature-in-2010-hottest-year/

Quite so, bugsy. And even if cooling since 1998 were shown to be statistically significant, it wouldn't necessarily disprove the AGW hypothesis. Cooling due to reduced insolation, for instance, might have been much greater but for the warming effect of CO2.

It might be worthwhile to recall the criteria which science uses for judging the utility of a hypothesis. Irving Copi's list is, I think, still preeminent. The standards are:

1) relevance
2) testability
3) compatibility with previously well-established hypotheses
4) predictive or explanatory power
5) simplicity.

I won't try to apply the above to the Great Global Warming Debate in 350 words or less. It's fair to say, though, that relevance is established. And, about AGW in general, I think it's reasonably compatible with other accepted hypotheses. Testability, of course, is a serious problem (and one where questions of statistical significance are absolutely central).

Predictive or explanatory power is a very weak point. We're over-reliant on very dodgy computer models, many of which are not available for scrutiny by scientists at large. The idea that such models can be considered 'proprietary', kept secret, and still used to influence public policy on such important issues, is absolutely diabolical. So also is 'Pal' review, where your paper is vetted by friends in the same field, while experts in related disciplines (statistics being a notable one here) are denied an opportunity to comment, and perhaps to correct obvious errors. Al Gore took the AGW hypothesis right out of the realm of science, and plonked it firmly in the camp of religion: hence the contumely heaped on so-called 'sceptics' and 'deniers'. You can’t claim the authority of science for the AGW hypothesis if your argument includes hyperbole, unwarranted extrapolation, and bad science fiction. It's unfortunate that's colouring debate.

Simplicity is a good criterion for judging between competing hypotheses. If it could be shown that insolation has increased over the last few decades, for instance, a solar cycle explanation might better explain climate data than AGW. Hasn’t happened yet, but it can’t be ruled out. We’ll see, no?

A couple of points;
To all those who argue that CO2 is not 'pollution', I suggest this argument can be resolved quite abruptly. Just try breathing the stuff for ten minutes.
Yes CO2 is beneficial for plants, and if we were actually trying to increase the world's green matter it would be a valid argument. Unfortunately, according to United Nations Earthwatch, “Almost half of the planet’s original forest has been destroyed, mostly during the last three decades. Between 1990 and 1995, the net forest loss equaled 33 football fields per minute (112 600 square kilometers annually)”.
IOW, at the very same time as we are deliberately converting fossil fuels into 21 billion tonnes of atmospheric CO2 every year, we are cutting down and destroying those organisms which would not only gain from this 'abundance', but would happily convert it into something we can breath.
Recently, Freeman Dyson (regarded by many as one of the world's very smartest people, although a noted contrarian) pointed out that our carbon problem could be resolved if we just planted 1 trillion trees. Now I'm not prepared to comment on whether that is a practical solution or not, but surely it must be obvious and inarguable that the more we cut down on carbon pollution, the less trees we have to plant, and vice versa, if we are to retain some equilibrium.
Isn't that the 'conservative' thing to do?

The other point which never fails to get me cranky, is the business of perpetually ignoring the 'Forgotten Fifty' (percent); that half of our population who make less than $40k a year. If they are remembered, it is only to treat them like children and offer them handouts; like this nonsense of a carbon tax which will only 'affect' the largest companies.
Even children can be made to understand that when the costs to a business rise, the business will respond by increasing prices, which is I suspect why this tax is meeting so much opposition.
For a carbon tax to work, it has to impinge on every voter, and the only way that can work is basically, if it is in the form of something like a 'luxury' tax: manual can opener, no tax; electric can opener, tax. Ceiling fans, no tax; air conditioning, tax.
Other examples might include a container ship tax, where food and goods travelling large distances are taxed, energy inefficient cars and machinery are taxed, electricity 'transported' (by high voltage cables, involving egregious losses) over long distances are taxed, etc, etc.
To increase public awareness of a problem, surely the first step must be to engage the public in the problem? If we are to subsidise the poor to buffer them against tax increases, why not make it in the form of subsidised affordable energy efficient housing, community or municipal power and water supplies?
Perhaps AGW is a contentious issue, but is anyone prepared to argue that pollution is a good thing?
Or that the enormous wastage of resources caused by the 'tyranny of distance' is to be applauded?

Two quick things here.
Andrew Bolt says the last ten years have been cooling. If you disagree why not take him on? Personally Melbourne was without any doubt whatsoever cooler last year and so was most of England. No arguments here so how come it was the hottest year on record this is bollox as they say in the Classics!
Secondly why don't all you greenies cut off the utilities and do it all yourself? You say you are the majority so it would be fixed surely? No you want to steal my money. Well good luck boys and girls watch what happens to Juliar. Oh ask Windsor and Oakshott how they reckon they are going to go on the next election after their little independant mates got chucked out in the NSW elections.