Yet another attempt at diversion, by you, Steven. There is no demonstration of the “hotspot”, whether or not there is a dispute over a proof that it does not exist. There is no proof that it does exist, simply an assertion that if it does exist, it will be the “signature”, for AGW.

The only reasonable explanation for the inability to show a “hotspot” is that the IPCC used estimates which were far too high.

Fancy you forgetting that, Steven. Perhaps your ability to forget all the factors mitigating against the fragile AGW hypothesis is the basis of your strange request for a “smoking gun”, when there are so many of them, if only you could remember them.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any but a negligible effect on climate. I consider that sufficient reason to put any action on hold, while we investigate why there is a constant baseless assertion that human emissions have an effect worth addressing.

We need a Royal Commission to ascertain this.

Graham pointed me to an interesting report on a not yet published paper.

A NEW, LOWER ESTIMATE OF CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/11/08/a-new-lower-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity/

The author is Andreas Schmittner at the University of Oregon.

See: http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~andreas/

>>There is word circulating that a paper soon to appear in Science magazine concludes that the climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—likely (that is, with a 66% probability) lies in the range 1.7°C to 2.6°C, with a median value of 2.3°C. This is a sizeable contraction and reduction from the estimates of the climate sensitivity given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), in which the likely range is given as 2.0°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate of 3.0°C>>

Well that's good news if correct. It buys us a few more decades.

Although in a way, for me it's bad news. I've always said nothing is gong to curb emissions so if I'm still alive and compos mentis in the 2030s I'll have the answer. I thought I had a fair chance of making it.

However if Schmittner is correct we won't know until the 2050s and I don't think I'm going to make it. (I'm 67).

I look forward to reading the paper and the responses.

The Acolyte Rizla

Technically I think you're correct. The actual unit is the "kelvin."

In conformance with modern terminology I should have written:

>>The rise in average temperature for a doubling from present already elevated levels would be less than one kelvin>>

(Without the "degree")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

However, in future, to avoid all confusion I shall refer to a degree Celsius.

rpg

Note that Science, one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals, is quite happy to publish a paper that challenges the consensus view.

I don't think your allegations about peer review have any basis in fact.

Leo Lane wrote:

>>There is no demonstration of the “hotspot”, …There is no proof that it does exist, …>>

Actually Leo Lane, that is not quite accurate. Here is a link to a paper on the question.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html

Neither you nor I are in a position to judge whether Douglass et al, or the paper I linked by Allen and Sherwood is correct. So the only rational position is to say "I don't know, I'll have to await further developments."

Unless, of course, you're succumbing to confirmation bias in which case you'll simply choose the paper that conforms to your predilections.

The sceptics here seem to be convinced that climate scientists are a bunch of scumbags and charlatans engaged in some sort of fraud and they have somehow managed to deceive scientists from all the world's peak scientific bodies.

Or maybe you think that scientists in the world's peak scientific bodies, for some unfathomable reason, are in on the scam.

I have received no reply to the question of the absent barking dog.

Matt L

Answered in my post of: Tuesday, 15 November 2011 6:46:36 PM

See also Bugsy's comments.

Anyway, back on Monday.

So have a good weekend everyone

Ok Peter Hume, I'm sorry. Insults per se aren't irrational, but if being used as a basis for an argument they are.

So, in the interest of moving forward, you would like me to admit that:
You just assumed what is in issue and that this is irrational and unscientific
2. Appeal to absent authority is a fallacy
3. Steven’s argument as to the distinction between professional/amateur involves that fallacy
4. A valid disproof by an amateur is no less a disproof for it being done by an amateur
5. Science does not supply value judgments
6. Even if there were no issue as to climate science, it would not provide justification for policy action on global warming
7. For policy action on global warming to be justified requires knowledge of the upsides and downsides and that government is incapable of such knowledge
8. Government is also incapable of taking into account all relevant values in deciding on policy action and is therefore incapable of justifying policy action.

Ok, consider it done.

Links please.

Steven
“Answered in my post of: Tuesday, 15 November 2011 6:46:36 PM”

No you didn’t answer why you are not making an appeal to authority in that post. You merely stated that you aren’t, without giving any reason, even though your whole argument is that it must be true because so many professional scientists say it is.

When I asked you why saying this:
“continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere poses a risk of severe negative consequences because the Science group says so”
is, to quote you, “not saying anything of the sort” as this
“Adding CO2 to the atmosphere poses grave risks because scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say so”?
you DIDN’T ANSWER me.

Then when I asked you again, you DIDN’T ANSWER me again and referred me back to your original unsupported assertion which I'm saying is wrong.

So I’m asking you *again*. Why is it *not* an appeal to absent authority, to argue as you are doing, that continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere poses a risk of severe negative consequences because the Science group says so?

Steven you've got that back to front too mate.

The change in the sensitivity doesn't & never was meant to buy us anything, we all ready have any number of decades.

What it is meant to do is buy "them" another decade or two. Their previously wild claims have proved so far wrong, they were frightened the backlash would eliminate them. They could not sit on such garbage any longer.

If you are still around in those decades, it won't be the warming that has changed, it will be their claims of sensitivity. Another couple of decades, if the IPCC, & their fellow travelers at East Anglia & the rest are still around, it will be 0.23, not 2.3 that they'll be touting, & you can bet your boots that even that will have some new & equally dire consequence that must be researched.

It would almost be worth living that long, just to throw the egg.