I believe the following statement by the author is a scientific statement: "…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

Can you refute that science, csteele?

You say: “"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."

You seem to have taken little notice of how Hansen is regarded by his peers. A letter from 48 of his work colleagues asserted that he has not only brought NASA into disrepute, but Science itself.

I make an assessment of veracity based on whether the statement is true or not, by objective observation.

If a statement is made that human emissions contribute to climate change, then the statement should be backed by scientific observation.

They are shown to have a local effect, but the global effect is trivial, and not measurable. If the waterfront dwelling Minister for Lies about Sea Levels urinates in the ocean adjoining his home, we know that the ocean is polluted, but the pollution is trivial and not measurable.

The natural CO2 cycle contains 3% human emissions of CO2. It has a 10% natural variation. How can human emissions be shown to have any significance? You believe that someone of high scientific ability misinforming us will prove it. A Realist does not believe that.

We know that human emissions have an effect, but it is trivial and not measurable.

We are grateful to Tim Ball for his informative and honest article. Smears of the author from the addled thinking alarmists amongst us are unhelpful and inappropriate

The way Hansen is regarded by his peers, you say, is relevant to you, csteele, so the following may help:

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program.”

And

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decision or public statements,” the critics added.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/astronauts-condemn-nasa%E2%80%99s-global-warming-endorsement/469366

Hansen is a statistician, and apparently a very good one. It is a field where the practitioner has to make objective judgments. Hansen has lost his objectivity, and is no longer capable of the judgment demanded of him to carry out his work.

It is important that this be recognised, so that he is no longer in a position to mislead the public. His co-workers, and Tim Ball have contributed to recognition of his untenable status. Hopefully his misinformation will be at some point totally disregarded.

We must congratulate OLO for its role in publishing appropriate articles. It would help if the alarmists could be objective, and refrain from irresponsible outbursts when confronted wit the Truth.

Dear Leo Lane,

You wrote;

“I believe the following statement by the author is a scientific statement: "…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

Can you refute that science, csteele?”

Are you serious?

There have been literally thousands of studies attributing all or part of climate change to man-made causes. Even Hansen in 1981 said the global temperatures that would raise themselves over the noise after 2000 would be attributable to man-made causes.

Oh wait, I see, silly me. What you are really saying is that in the opinion of Dr Tim Ball, who must have reviewed every paper on the subject, “no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”.

That sir is an opinion not science, at least not in my world.

To your letter from the 48 serving and former astronauts and scientists. There were some distinguished names on the list including Dr Chris Kraft who should be instantly recognisable to admirers of the US space program. But of all the closest we came to a climate scientist was the last person listed, Mr Thomas Wysmuller a meteorologist. One was quite intriguing, a Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel. Love to know what that involved.

They are not saying the CO2 is not a principle driver only that the science is not definitive. I'm not sure these 48 out of the literally tens of thousands of current and former NASA employees requesting the organisation refrain from referring to CO2 as a climate change driver is in keeping with transparent public discussion, but as evidenced by this article the fight over the science of GW is pretty brutal and many on the list would find it distasteful as do I.

Sadly this is a consequence of nastiness displayed by many engaging in the debate.

Now my friend can you show me where I have made an “irresponsible outburst”?

Denial is a part of the human mind.
As Churchill said that the receptive capacity of a mans mind to register disaster is like a three inch pipe under a culvert. The three inch pipe will go on passing the water through under pressure, but when a flood comes the water flows over the culvert whilst the pipe goes on handling it's three inches. Similarly the human brain will register emotions up to it's three inch limit and subsequently additional emotions flow past unregistered.
Eventually it will become so obvious that global warming is a fact that even humans will accept it.

I remember Tim Ball's effort in the UK documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - some say a swindle itself.

In retirement, he writes numerous op-eds much the same meme as this - nothing much new.

Tim Ball disagrees with many other 'contrarian' scientists who acknowledge humanity's impact - they really should sort it.

Tim Ball is not a "Doctor of Science", despite his claim to the contrary.

Yes, csteele, you have nothing to back your assertions. No science, and no facts.

Your statement:“thousands of studies attributing all or part of climate change to man-made causes” is the usual science deficient claptrap.

Just give one study which measures the effect of man made emissions on global climate.

There are plenty of weasel worded inferences posing as scientific observations.

We know that, the statement by the Royal Society is a prime example.

We also know that there is no scientific basis for any assertion that human emissions have any significance in global climate. Fancy giving Hansen as a reference. He did not say it in a scientific paper, but in one of his misinforming articles.

In scientific terms the assertion is “plausible, but not measurable”, or “trivially true, but of no significance”.

You do not need to be a scientist to understand that, csteele, just rational.

Another smearing session from bonmot, who cannot help himself. It is surprising that he posts here considering the fool he has made of himself in the past. He now calls telling the truth about AGW “a swindle”.