Well OzDoc, if you were a real scientist you would have no trouble addressing the issues that I raise. Spitting the dummy rather than spitting out facts is not science in any way, shape or form. Your comments about conservative governments allegedly closing down science that they don't like indicates that you come from an ideological position, and given your position on discussing the science, is probably an example of projection.

You're a good example of the problem, not the solution.

Luciferase, if I quoted a rogue paper, as you've done, you'd be entitled to criticise me. It is well-accepted and in multiple papers, that CO2 behaves over the length of the ice cores as I say it does. Here's a report from last year confirming it http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.7/rise_in_temperatures_and_co2/ There's a decades' worth of such papers.

The problem with Lavis' argument Poirot is that he couldn't provide an example where public opinion was on the wrong side of the science, so that was an own goal. And he misrepresents my argument. The analogy is with a jury choosing between expert opinion, not pretending to be experts themselves. So his is a straw man argument, typical of the sort of rhetorical tricks you get in this area. People who use such tricks as he (and you by requoting) does generally do so because they can't win the real argument. Or alternatively, don't understand it.

Graham,

"...Your comments about conservative governments allegedly closing down science that they don't like indicates that you come from an ideological position, and given your position on discussing the science, is probably an example of projection."

It's been well known for a while now that the Harper govt is in the business of muzzling scientists. The US is having a go as well.

http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/

No doubt, the Abbott govt is some way down the path on this type of venture as well...."Repent" and all that.

You comparing Skeptical Science with runner's literal Bible is really an insult to anyone with real scientific qualifications.

In fact, it appears that luring scientists with real qualifications and experience to this forum is the last thing you want.

Why would they wish to come here to discuss "science" when they are peppered with taunts the minute they enter the fray?

All I want to do is talk about the science, or lack of it.

Lucifer has referred to Shakum et al as evidence of the alleged consanguinity between CO2 and temp.

A couple of things before I explain why I think Shakum et al is a bad paper. Firstly his co-author is Marcott who wrote a paper verifying the Hockeystick. Marcott's paper is why I think AGW science is fraudulent. Marcott used deceptive statistic analysis to achieve his results which I would be glad to discuss.

Secondly, the consequent Parrenin et al paper has taken Shakum's thesis of a reduced lag between temp rise and CO2 movement to its AGW consistent conclusion, which is no asynchrony between temp and CO2 movements at all:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060

This is ludicrous and contradicts basic physical principles such as Henrys Law. It also throws out standards of ice core interpretation which have underpinned the AGW based conclusions that the current climate situation is exceptional. But that is typical of AGW science where the goal-posts are continually moved to accommodate the narrative.

And so to Shakum et al. Shakum cherry-picked his data by discontinuing his CO2 proxies about 6000 years ago when they showed an increase at the time temperature began its decline to the present. When the latter proxies are included with Shakum’s data there is nothing in the data to justify Shakum’s conclusion that CO2 preceded temperature when in fact most of the proxies show temperature and CO2 going in opposite directions. This is confirmed by Lansner’s analysis which I link to again; unlike Shakum and most climate scientists Lansner is an engineer and is proficient in Fourier analysis which distinguishes noise from real trends:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

I don't need climate scientists and other poseurs telling me what the data means; I can analyse it myself and I'm prepared to discuss it in an open, transparent way.

But all of AGW science is based on authoritative declarations. So, here is Lucifer's opportunity; address the complaint I have made about Shakaum et al; did the paper discontinue its analysis 6000 years ago; and if so why?

What real scientist has been "peppered with taunts" on this forum Poirot? Bob Carter? Well, I'm not guilty. Or do you have someone else in mind?

Skeptical Science is not a place for real scientists, it is a propaganda outfit. Of course I didn't compare it to the Bible, I compared the unsophisticated use of its materials as though they represented truth and were therefore unable to be questioned to the way Runner uses the Bible. The issue is inerrancy.

I'm not surprised that the Canadian government requires bureaucrats to go through the proper channels when talking to the media. Just because a bureaucrat has a BSc doesn't mean they should be exempted from normal protocols. Subjecting a scientist to managerial oversight doesn't mean you're anti-science.

Have you been following the Australian case where a public servant was fired for tweeting under an anonymous name? It's the same deal and in this case the government in question is social democrat. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-23/canberra-public-servant-loses-court-bid-to-keep-working/4976022

Graham,

If you can't work out when you're engaging a real scientist...well...what can I say.

I mean in general they usually don't come here, just like they don't go to Jo Nova's or Anthony Watts' sites....because they know they'll be verbally abused and howled down as frauds, etc.

When your starting position is one of accusing people of being frauds and purveying propaganda, what hope is there for dialogue on blogs like this...blogs full of people who have an amateur interest, some knowledge, but no particular training, expertise or experience working in the various fields associated with climate.

And why is it only "climate" scientists are held up to be frauds?

And you appear to think muzzling scientists is a good thing.

I find that freaky in our so-called "enlightened" age.

Btw, "normal protocols" used to mean freedom for scientists to speak (on "science" for Pete's sake) without being subject to government control.

Not much more to say really.....

Poirot, like all advocates from the left, about AGW, or any of their pet issues, you are a hypocrite.

The censorship and attempts to suppress free discussion about AGW has always come from the left and those supporters of AGW, on this site and others.

It began at OLO when Hamilton took his ball and left because sceptics were permitted to put their opinion forward:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

Hamilton tried the same stunt at The Drum:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/29732.html

And it worked; the ABC, a taxpayer funded organisation with a charter prescribing no bias is the most biased media outlet in the country where no sceptic can now get a voice:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/can-australia-afford-abc.html

There are numerous examples of left suppression ranging from Finkelstein, to Wikipedia suppression of sceptic viewpoints, numerous instances of scientists working within such government funded bodies as CSIRO and its international equivalent, being harassed and fired for holding and expressing sceptical viewpoints, admissions made within the emails about concerted and deliberate plans to prevent sceptical scientists from being published and all progressive commentators from Manne to regular contributor at OLO, Kellie Trantor supporting suppression of sceptical views:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35484.html

Not to mention that the money poured into Green coffers to spread the scam of AGW is VAST, billions in Australia alone, with most main media outlets supporting it vociferously in the case of ABC and Fairfax and the rest to a lessor degree.

And you have the gall to complain when sometimes on this site the outrageous scaremongering and unscientific, appeals to authority declarations made by alarmists is taken to task.

Well done Poirot!