What facts would they be, popnperish?

You will find that the alarmists are very short on facts, but to prove me wrong you might come up with the science which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

For all the attacks on Ball in the comments, no one has come up with any science to refute anything that he has said, or any facts to refute what he says about Hansen.

It is clear that Hansen does not rely on science to back his activism, but on misrepresentations.

It is clear that CO2, demonised as the cause of global warming, has been increasing for the last 14 years, with no increase in temperature, and if the truth somehow emerges despite the efforts of the fraud backers, probably some cooling.

It is not science to assert that correlation demonstrates causation, but a misrepresentation, Hansen’s specialty.

But popnperish ignores facts, like his role model, the railway engineer who runs the IPCC.

When Pachauri answered a criticism regarding a misrepresentation on the Himalayan glaciers, he immediately attacked the scientists pointing out the error as “voodoo scientists”. This underlines his complete lack of scientific background.

The mistake came about through reliance by the IPCC on a WWF propaganda leaflet in lieu of any scientific observation. To underline his arrogance, Pachauri, in answer to a call for tigher standards, had a resolution passed to make “grey literature” like the WWF lies permissible as IPCC references.

csteele

Look, again we come to the problem that most of those who debate this issue about CO2 in the atmosphere have not caught up with the basics. The DIRECT effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is well known and has never been the subject of argument by either side. The level of CO2 in greenhouses is frequently pushed up to double that of the atmosphere and its a matter of simple experiment. Doubling present concentrations results in an increase of 1.1 degrees, all things being equal.

The real issue is the INDIRECT or feedback effect of the mild warming caused by increases in CO2. This has to with the levels of water vapour in the atmosphere. So the big temperature increases you read about are the result of assumed major feedback effects. Those feedback effects have msot decided not been confirmed.

I won't discuss those points further but I'd suggest you read up.

Yes, the sun does drive climate, so there is a real question about the previous mild warming I mention is swamped by other factors. For the Milenkovitch cycles you mention are just one part of it.. but that's a whole world for you to discover.. I have wrtiten about this on this forum in the past, if you search on the byline Mark Lawson.

popnperish

no, I'm a sceptic, the problem is that the new evidence does not favour your views on the subject..

csteele You are relying heavily on desmogblog an activist website which specialises in character assassination not factual rebuttal. Again we see your post attempting to "prove" that Tim Ball has falsified his credentials by referencing dubious sources. Ball has answered this question on numerous occasions but you have not apparently read his answer.

Climatology refers to a number of different disciplines including Climate Physics, Climate Chemistry, Meteorology and others such as Historical Climatology which is Ball's PhD thesis category.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_climatology

Surely you are engaging in the same vitriol of which you are complaining.

Dear cohenite,

Are you really trotting out those two Germans again? I thought their rather interesting take on the second law of thermodynamics had been dealt with a couple of years ago. Saying their work has been peer reviewed is stretching but to say they have been unrebutted is just plain wrong. Hung, drawn and quartered might be a more apt description.

Just take Halper et al's response “COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS" published later in the same journal;

“In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. … they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption.

BTW do you understand half of what you have posted?

Dear Leo Lane,

You wrote; “For all the attacks on Ball in the comments, no one has come up with any science to refute anything that he has said, or any facts to refute what he says about Hansen.”. There was not much science in Ball's article to refute, more diatribe.

Dear Altman,

So despotic, misdirector of public policy, “disregard for scientific accuracy”, “no scientist would make such a claim”, “mistakes that have been typical throughout his career”, “narrowness inappropriate in science”, “perpetuate false science to the detriment of society”, “misinterpreting for some reason”, “abuse of public trust", are fine but me linking to a source document is vitriol?

Don't make me laugh.

Dear cumudgeon,

Post limits means I will have to get to you next although I still have had no reply on your Forecasting thread.

csteele, I'm deeply shocked. Not once during the the 11 years that John Howard was Prime Minister of Australia did you accept that he was right on everything although he must have been, because on your logic, to determine who is right and who is wrong, you simply tote up the number of people who support each side of the argument. He definitely had the numbers.

Given your failure to acknowledge Howard's obvious rightness(on your logic) I can only assume that it is a convenient, not a correct, argument that you advance.

Dear GrahamY,

Perhaps it's the time of night but I will admit to having to take a minute or two to get my head around what you were putting to me.

I hope my answers are at least cogent.

To your first point;

"to determine who is right and who is wrong, you simply tote up the number of people who support each side of the argument"

My best answer is to reiterate an earlier post;

"I, like many other lay people, do not have the science, experience, or the knowledge to fully grasp and judge the arguments made when one scientist challenges another."

"What we can do however is make an assessment of the veracity we should be give to each based on their expertise or more specifically their qualifications and their areas of study. How they are regarded by their peers is of course important as is the manner with which they conduct themselves in public."

That being said I do acknowledge the truism that once a position is settled upon it is far harder to be shifted by pugnacious offerings such as this article than one might otherwise have been.

Which leads us to your second point;

"I can only assume that it is a convenient, not a correct, argument that you advance.”

Though not quite comfortable with your wording I would have to agree, yes, particularly where the science of GW is concerned. Yet I would argue that that is the fate of all of us without at least a Ph.D in Physics.

That being said I'm not sure I'm advancing too many arguments more responding in the same bullish manner that seems to pervade the skeptic/denier cohort.

While I'm of the mind the data is showing Hansen has possibly overestimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at 4.2C and that the figure is closer to 3C I think he is a fine, top shelf, if not passionate scientist. I find the attacks on him, especially from those who don't come within a bull's roar of his stature, distasteful and deserving of a response.