If moon astronaut Harrison Schmitt is sceptical about the degeee to which human activity has any bearing on climate change, then this reinforces my own skepticism about this matter.

Schmitt was not only an astronaut, he was the only geologist to ever walk on the moon. The fact that a gelogist of his eminence is sceptical, conforms with the premise, that geology scientists and climate change scientists hold opposing views on human induced global warming.

Threfore, it seems to me, that this is not an issue with science on one side and the ignorant on the other, it is about two separate sciences holding opposing views.

My inclination is to go with the people who have the hard evidence, and that lies with the geologists. The increasingly shrill prognostications of the climate scientists, who only have theory and computer modelling to back up thir claim, is beginning to look like the defence of an accused person who has nothing but moral outrage with which to defend himself.

I accept that the earth's resources are finite and that fossil carbon is an essential raw material for ever so should be conserved.

However climate scientists often ruin their case by exaggeration. An example I saw recently was the accumulation of ocean heat over twenty years. The claim was that total ocean heat absorption per year, in Joules, is one followed by twenty two zeros (1 x 10^22 Joules in scientific terms). One cubic centimetre of water requires 4.19 Joules of heat input to warm by one degree. There are 1.32 x 10^24 cc of ocean water so the claimed rate of heat absorption will raise the ocean temperature overall by one degree over the next 1000 years. I think my maths is correct but anyone can check it. (The earth's radius is 6371km, the ocean covers 70% of the earth's surface and the ocean depth averages 3700m).

The climate scientists also talk of acidification of the ocean. The ocean is quite alkaline with a pH of about 8.2. The ocean contains;
Sodium 10,500 ppm (parts per million)
Magnesium 1,300 ppm
Potassium 400 ppm
Calcium 400 ppm
Chlorine 19,000 ppm
Sulphate ions 2,600 ppm
There is, by weight, 280 times as much ocean as there is atmosphere so the present 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would, if absorbed by the ocean, amount to 1.43ppm. How much difference is 1.43ppm likely to make in the presence of all those other potent ions? The climate scientists should be saying that the carbon dioxide is reducing the alkalinity of the ocean but not by much.

We need to reduce our waste of fossil fuels and other valuable resources otherwise we will substantially reduce the living standards of our grand children's grandchildren.

The author says "Stephan Lewandowsky is a leading AGW scientist"

What absolute rubbish.

from http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stephan-lewandowsky-33172.html

Stephan Lewandowsky is an Australian Professorial Fellow and Winthrop Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia. He is a cognitive scientist who has published more than 100 papers, chapters, and scholarly books on how people remember and think, with a particular emphasis on the role of skepticism in the updating of memories.

from http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=22

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist in the School of Psychology at UWA. His research focuses on the role of scepticism in memory updating and the distinction between scepticism and denial.

He has published nearly 140 papers, chapters, and scholarly books on how people remember and think.

All those books on how to think, Jeremy.

Pity he doesn't read them before he bursts into print about things of which he has no knowledge.

"The author says "Stephan Lewandowsky is a leading AGW scientist"

What absolute rubbish."

No Jeremy, Lewandowsky has pushed his profile aggressively on the basis that he is both a well credentialed scientist, that AGW is real and he can say with authority that scepticism is a product of psychological deficiency rather than being science based.

The distinction between a prominent, self-promoting scientist making such comments and between the equal advocacy of 'real' climate scientists is non-existent because ALL climate science is advocacy; any pretence of scientific validity has been long forsaken by the AGW advocates.

In this respect Lewandowsky IS an AGW scientist because he uses the same methodology as other AGW scientists, which is to ridicule sceptics; in fact, given Lewandowsky's 'psychological' credentials and great insights into human cognitive processes, and how to manipulate these processes, he is probably more of a climate scientist than other climate scientists.

I do agree with you, however, that Lewandowsky's paper is rubbish.

It's an encouraging sign, really: it shows that the AGW movement has given up trying to defend its position with facts and moved on to ad hominem attacks against those who oppose it.

No alarmist really expects their pro-AGW papers to be taken seriously by the scientific community any more; they're issued in order to keep the gullible True Believers forking out taxes and electing alarmist politicians for another year or so, while the perpetrators try to work up another source of lucrative hysteria.

I'll bet that Lewondowsky is from the Behaviourist school of Psychology, JohnJ.

The modern Cognitive school of psychology consider the Behaviourist's to all be drop kicks.

Another swing and a miss by Cox from the creationist play book.

Talking of things made of cheese.....Great article, cohenite!

If this was the middle ages Poirot would support labelling all people questioning AWG alarmist belief as heretic's and have them burned at the stake.

imajulianutter,

<<If this was the middle ages [name deleted to save embarrassment] would (oversee) ...burn(ing) heretic's at the stake>>

Excellent point, I have often thought that most AGWers --leastways those we see around these parts-- would fit in well in any totalitarian society. They are so good as adhering to the party line and so quick to toss abuse.

Stalin and Hitler would have given their right arms(and perhaps their left as well) to have such devoted, one-eyed followers.

SPQR and imajulianuer,

Melodrama "and" Cheese!

(Yum!)

The only food that comes to mind when I think of you Poirot is eggplant -yuck!

Poirot, who do you identify with the most, Wallace or Gromit? I'm doing a Lewandowsky type survey of alarmists and want to, like Lewandowsky, just deal with the facts.

Anthony, you seriously are a chump. Lewandowsky is not an AGW scientist, he is a cognitive scientist. That means he has expertise in how people think, not in climate change. He may have an opinion on climate change, but unless he is willing to provide evidence in support of his opinion, I don’t really care what it is. I am interested in what he has to say about conspiracy theorists and how they come to that position, because his comments are informed by the research he has done.

I think you might need someone with a bit more expertise than Jo Nova to provide sustained and cogent criticism of Lewandowsky’s paper. Jo Nova has no particular expertise in cognitive behaviour, so unless she is willing to bring evidence to the table, I am not that interested in what she has to say. Sadly, all she brought was conspiracy theorising from climate change deniers.

As for Harrison Schmitt, it is really great that he has been on the moon, but that achievement provides him with no specific expertise in climate science. Neither does the fact that he is a retired geologist. Sadly, Harrison like yourself and Nova has been unable to address the evidence in any coherent and cogent fashion. “Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely [Soviet] communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.” That seems to be the sum of his evidence that climate change is not happening.

So Anthony, I think I have to give you an F for this attempt. Please provide reliable evidence next time.

Geez Agro, even by your slipping standards, that was pretty dismal.

I wonder how Lewandowsky would apply his great cognitive insight into the mysteries of the human intellect and thought processes to the antics of the current government?

AGW science is nothing but advocacy so Lewandowsky who has resorted to advocacy of AGW can be judged on the same basis as other AGW scientists, which I now see includes pensioned off former military gentlemen.

Lewandowsky's study was not flawed, it was fake as the idea that the Moon landing was fake; it was fake because the responses it ostensibly got from sceptics were not real; they were not real because the sceptics who were ostensibly surveyed did not respond.

That's pretty basic, isn't Agro. And seriously, did you write this:

"I am interested in what he has to say about conspiracy theorists and how they come to that position, because his comments are informed by the research he has done."

Chumper

My attitude to AGW is quite simple;
Until the climate scientists use realistic fossil fuel quantities in
the models then they are in the GIGO realm.
(Garbage in Garbage Out)

The Uppsala Universities Global Energy Systems Group has done the work
so why do the AGW people ignore it ?

Until that is resolved you are wasting your time discussing AGW !

Anthony, if you want to disagree with the points I make, you really should contribute some proper evidence to back your statements. This is why you keep getting a failing grade.

So let’s take the issues one at a time. Stephan Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist, not a climate scientist: http://www.cogsciwa.com/

What Lewandowsky does or does not think about the current government has no bearing on him not being a climate scientist.

AGW is a scientific hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming with considerable evidence to support it, although not everyone agrees that it is correct.

The only material that you so far have presented that Lewandowsky’s study might be wrong is testimonials from climate change deniers. Unfortunately, these people have a habit of cherry picking numbers they like, ignoring evidence they don’t like, twisting evidence to make it seems like something it isn’t and when all else fails making stuff up. Do you remember that graph you posted with the fake yellow trend line showing no change? The one where the fake yellow trend line was subtly bent to make it look like it fitted the errors bars better? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14784 That was one of your best efforts so far. I think we should give it a name: Faketrendlinegate might do for now, although Coxgate is shorter and more likely to catch on.

You see Anthony, the problem with these people is that their statements about climate change are untrustworthy – as this piece illustrates http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14784. So there needs to be better quality evidence than these testimonials to show Lewandowsky’s study is fake.

Very weak Agro:

"Stephan Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist, not a climate scientist"

Flannery is a palaeontologist not a climate scientist.

Steffen is a chemical engineer not a climate scientist.

Etc; a host of 'climate scientists' have deviated from their original training and expertise to subsequently specialise in climate science.

As I explained, and which you ignore, is that the defining characteristic of a climate scientist is primarily advocacy; to which you can add, modelling, data manipulation, noble cause corruption and implacable devotion to the concept of AGW.

By this definition Lewandowsky is a climate scientist.

You then play the men/women who have criticised Lewandowsky's 'paper' without considering one of those criticisms except to say the sceptics who say they did not respond to Lewandowsky's survey were 'lying'; you are with the pixies mate; do you really think people like Jo Nova, Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts believe the Moon landing is fake?!

It is plain that no sceptics did Lewandowsky's survey; McIntyre does the analysis step by step:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/

This analysis has nothing to do with testimonials.

In other words Lewandowsky made it up; that's a charge of academic fraud; it has not been addressed; coincidentally Lewandowsky has left the country; what a schmozzle; and this guy is an expert on human behaviour and mentality.

Agro, you're defending the indefensible; business as usual.

cohenite,

That's a bit cheesy.

You know all too well that "climate science" encompasses many disciplines.

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

...of which cognitive science is not included.

He's merely studying the psychology of denial (a related subject:)

Poirot; like Agro you miss the point which is Lewandowsky endorses and slavishly and aggressively supports AGW; his academic credentials give his support credibility. He uses those academic credentials to vouchsafe those who support AGW and to vociferously denounce those who don't.

Lewandowsky's role in promoting AGW is essential and correlates with the consensus and authority arguments to support AGW. The promotion of AGW is done by exclusion and the defining of sceptics as outsiders and inadequate in their capacity to argue against the received wisdom of climate science.

Lewandowsky is on the same page as all the other agitators for AGW like Karoly, Steffen and Flannery; he is a climate scientist for this reason.

cohenite,

Yes, it's extremely remiss of Lewandowsky to be guided by actual scientists on the question of climate change.

One wonders why he doesn't take more notice of the myriad non-scientific commentators and their "expertise" on the subject.

Strange old world.

I would describe a climate scientist as someone with research expertise in one of the disciplines associated with climate research and who has published on the topic in the mainstream climate science journals. However, in Anthony Cox’s world a climate scientist is someone who promotes an idea that Anthony does not agree with. We have ourselves a rabbit hole here, ladies and gentlemen.

In this strange world that Anthony Cox inhabits, an e-mail exchange about a webpage suddenly becomes an analysis and proof a study was faked.

Because Anthony Cox doesn’t think that Jo Nova, Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts believe the moon landings were faked, this becomes proof that no skeptic (this means climate change denier in the normal universe) could possibly believe the moon landings were faked. Perhaps the above is the full list of climate change deniers that Anthony Cox knows.

I am encouraged to create a list of greatest hits from Anthony Cox. I think the climate scientist definition will certainly make it, along with faketrendlinegate.

"I would describe a climate scientist as someone with research expertise in one of the disciplines associated with climate research and who has published on the topic in the mainstream climate science journals"

I agree; the point I make again since, I presume, you are deliberately ignoring it and are not stupid, is that the primary discipline [sic] associated with "climate research" is advocacy and denigration of sceptics.

Lewandowsky excels at this; he is not just a climate scientist but an exemplar, a first amongst equals, as it were.

"However, in Anthony Cox’s world a climate scientist is someone who promotes an idea that Anthony does not agree with."

This, however, is quite wrong; you, Agro, for instance promote AGW and I don't consider you a climate scientist.

And really, if you are going to misrepresent the analysis of Lewandowsky's survey by McIntyre can you do better than a "e-mail exchange about a webpage."

Lewandowsky's 2 papers [the second being the ironically titled "Recursive Fury"] based on his survey of sceptic comments go to the heart of the scientific process because the issue is not how Lewandowsky treated his data but whether he had any data at all. Geoff Chambers has a good summary here:

http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/lewandowsky-the-liar/

And Jeff Condon had to resort to the threat of litigation to get Lewandowsky to remove a false citation:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/?s=Lewandowsky

This is not science of any sort; at best it is agitprop; and in this respect and for this reason Lewandowsky is a climate scientist.

For a real climate scientist's take on the current state of play of climate science see von Storch:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

Oi, cohenite,

I was having mild snoop in the direction of von Storch - and I came upon this:

http://www.donaldisme.dk/vonStorch.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaldism#Germany

Still I expect Duckburg may be affected by climate change as well.

Yeah, well done Poirot; another absolutely incisive post by you.

Forgive me, cohenite, but I can't resist...

I think I've finally found the connection between people who "think" they know the science and those who really do.

Exhibit one:

http://www.uky.edu/Projects/Chemcomics/html/dd_15_2_n.html

"Donald invents Duckmite, which he uses to power a rocket to the moon."

(No mention as to whether he found it was made of cheese)

I do however recall one comic in my catalogue (I was a huge Donald Duck fan in my youth - taught me to read far more efficiently than Dick and Dora) where Donald and his nephews went to the Andes and found chickens who laid square eggs.

(A bit like you've done with this article)

Ouch!

@Poroit,

<<I was a huge Donald Duck fan in my youth...>>

Yep and it's evident in the way you write...I dare say most of what you know about world affairs came to you via Donald Duck!

Don't knock the Duck!

(I reckon I'm still in front on points in this thread:)

You're always ahead Poirot, on every thread you are in; in terms of comic relief you are non-pareil.

Why thank you, cohenite.

However, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge your part in providing the inspiration behind my performances.

(Bravo!)

I remember that edition ! Wasn't Uncle Scrooge involved somehow, searching for gold, something like that ?

Admiral Barrie may have a point - if sea-levels rise by six inches in the next century, that may not sound much but a tsunami of that size can sweep many metres inland, and knock over many sand-castles. Be afraid !

Joe