What sort of science?

Does it really matter to you?

"Drawing on your superior level of 'science' would you care to pick an aspect of AGW which you think is proved and say why so us plebs can tick the box on that and move on?"

Actually, no I wouldn't because I've seen this game before. Whatever I pick would be either not agreed to, or only temporarily agreed to and in either case not matter to you 'plebs'. This is because it would then be completely ignored by the next idiot who thinks he knows everything in a different thread and the whole dance starts up again...

It's frustrating, time consuming, pointless and doesn't resolve anything. The only actual resolutions can come from groups scientists discussing the data and conclusions and coming to some sort of synthesis of what's actually happening. This has already happened, but you lot won't agree to any of it.

I know getting bogged down in detail is a favourite of yours, but I am only here to point out the fraud that Don Aitken is, calling himself an 'empiricist' and pretending he's a scientist (political 'scientist' LOL) and trading on his background as a university administrator. Oh yes, he's read plenty of grant applications and so he 'knows' science, dontchaknow?

Hello Mr Bugsy,

You being a scientist and all, I was wondering if you might be able to point me in the right direction, by way of a link, to a graph of global mean sea level pressure anomalies over time - like the ones they do for surface air temp - from the olden days till now?

I've been searching for a while and I can't seem to find one. At least, I did find a sort of a one once at NOAA, but it was of such poor resolution that it was useless.

I'd be much obliged to you, because I'm fascinated to know what's been going on with it and curious to know why no one ever seems to discuss global mean sea level pressure in the great hot air debate.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Sir Vivor: "It seems as though the same mentality prevails in many of the comments here. I will offer one citation:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/10/bleak-prospects-for-avoiding-dangerous.html "

The author of the above reference, like you and your fellow AGW believers, relies heavily on the alarmist projections of climate models. The trust in these models is unwarranted, as they remain unvalidated. They are relatively simplistic and fail to represent the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the climate system, the understanding of which is far from adequate.

Given all the uncertainty about the causes of climate change, it is misleading and deceptive and unethical for science teachers to influence students into believing that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.

To paraphrase Mr Darcy, Bugsy is in no mood to tolerate the incomprehension of the masses.

And that of course has been the essence of the AGW 'science'; palpably wrong, a concoction [synthesis, ho, ho] of consensus by gravy train specialists and assorted loons [ie Flannery] assuming authority and wanting to dictate massive life-style changes for the hoi poloi on the basis of their informed superiority.

I don't get bogged down in detail; quite the opposite; it is the prolix crap from the AGW 'science' which seeks to deter understanding.

AGW is fundamentally un-egalitarian; its advocates universally want democracy and individual rights to be 'suspended' or curtailed to deal with the apocalypse of AGW. The average citizen is browbeaten and condescended to and dismissed.

It is this which is losing the public debate for AGW; and it is that public support which was all they had; with that gone and the 'science' in tatters all that is left is the likes and views of the Parncutts of the world:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/parncutt-death-threat-uni-of-graz-shocked-monckton-gets-it-withdrawn-with-apology-john-cook-says-nothing/

You had your chance Bugs and you squibbed it.

The problem is, cohenite, that you're all technique and no substance.

As I recall, Agronomist (who obviously has some formal science training), bounced you around like a rubber ball in that discussion - at every turn he had your measure.

And you're at it again with your:

"...and say why us plebs can tick that box and move on?"

and

"...Bugsy is in no mood to tolerate the comprehension of the masses."

and

"...gravy train specialists and assorted loons...assuming authority and wanting to dictate massive life-style changes for the hoi poloi on the basis of their informed superiority."

(Yep - cue device of "elitism". Refer to the first post on this thread)

The denialist camp abounds with conspiracy theories, cherry picking and fake experts (in fact, almost everything except the science)..and when they're called out on their dearth of understanding, they resort to other devices such as calling scientists "believers" and attempting to make it a "class" issue by referring to themselves as "plebs" etc.

When all you've got are devices - you've really got nothing.
It's not so perplexing for me because my main interest is in analysing denialist operating procedure. But why would a scientist wish to engage in any depth with your swaggering discourtesy or your willful ignorance?

cohenite:"You had your chance Bugs and you squibbed it."

Oh noes! Weally and twooly? I had a chance? To do what exactly? Educate a pig-ignorant lawyer on the complexities of climate science? Wow, can I have another chance pweeeeese?

Yeah, better leave your hand off it Cox.

voxUnius:

If NOAA keep those sorts of records, then have you tried contacting them to find out where you can find those records or who works on them? If the graphs were published, then NOAA will have a reference. If they were not, then they may direct you to the person who is most relevant.
Either way, I cannot help you. I am not a library, nor a research service.