Peter,

"As you can see, the data pattern – Fig. 2A - looks like it could have been put there with a shotgun"

Nope, all I can see is an error message. Can you try re-posting that link?

Sorry: see the top graph on page 1525

ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pub/pietropaolo.bertagnolio/climate/dessler10-cloudFeedbacks.pdf

While we're at it, can Steven tell us what significance we are supposed to attach to a single measure called "Global Average Surface Temperature"? Just think about it for a minute. Why is that not a senseless boffin-measure? Why should everyone else be disturbed as they go about their business by this kind of idle self-indulgent nonsense?

Peter Hume, I understand the Dessler paper you link to can be difficult to digest - particularly for the those riding this particular hobby horse. However, it does not help to take papers such as Dessler's out of context, or try and spin it with one's own rhetorical and ideological bent - as you clearly do.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I suspect you are doing this out of ignorance, rather than deliberately distorting or misrepresenting Dessler. Perhaps Steven had this in mind when he said "a lot of the scepticism here (on OLO) seems to be based on the belief that all climatologists are ratbags and scientists in the world's peak scientific bodies are easily fooled. Perhaps instead of browsing your favourite websites you should all get out and meet actual climatologists". There is an element of truth to what he suggests.

For what it's worth; Dessler, Spencer and other scientists working on these very issues are having meaningful dialogue and nuanced discussion over this paper (I suspect there will be numerous citations and further papers published as a result). You on the otherhand want to "argue" it here when you have demonstrated you really don't understand the science (I am not referring to policy). Before you claim the ol' ad hom cannard (as you tend to do) - the facts belie your assertions.

Instead of speculating about our "beliefs" why don't you guys listen to what us sceptics are trying to tell you about what we see of the science.

Actually, overnight, there is an excellent post at Judith Curry's Climate Etc referring to a recent conference of climate scientists in San Francisco.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/19/santa-fe-conference-part-ii-2/

http://www.capitolreportnewmexico.com/?p=6848

I think if you were to read both the capitol report on the conference (which purports to be neutral) you will see a relatively nuanced account that recognises the complexities of climate science.

Certainly, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the meme that "the science is settled" is not the current position of respected climate scientists.

qanda
Perhaps you are right that I don’t understand the science. But *nothing* that you have said demonstrates that.

The issue as to the science is whether Dessler was justified in his interpretation of the data. I have shown why he wasn’t, or why if true, it was so weak as to be meaningless and misleading.

But you haven’t shown why he was justified. All the reason you’ve given is an allegation that I am not up to questioning his authority – the same fallacy that Steven has been unable to refute.

“Perhaps Steven had this in mind when he said "a lot of the scepticism here (on OLO) seems to be based on the belief that all climatologists are ratbags and scientists in the world's peak scientific bodies are easily fooled. Perhaps instead of browsing your favourite websites you should all get out and meet actual climatologists". There is an element of truth to what he suggests.”

Steven thus showed that his methodology of knowledge is this: second-guess what he alleges group A are second-guessing about the subjective motivations of group B.

It should be obvious that this is invalid and hopelessly unscientific. Basically Steven’s entire method of dealing with the anti-AGW case is to say “What? You dare to suggest that there might be something wrong with the pronouncements of professional scientists?” That’s it. That’s his argument.

Thus you have not established that there is an element of truth to what he suggests.

“Before you claim the ol' ad hom cannard (as you tend to do) - the facts belie your assertions.”

You have not shown that I have used ad hom, quoted out of context, nor that the facts belie my assertions. None of my argument relies on ad hom. All of Steven’s does - the "you're too stupid" argument.

Let’s cut to the chase. How can anyone justify Dessler’s conclusion given such a weak correlation? (Notice, btw, that he extended the x-axis so as to make the data *appear* to be less of a cloud-shape, and more linear.)

No real scientist says "the science is settled" - it never is.

That is only a "meme" taken out of context by extremists from both sides of the ideological divide.