What if anything can be done about Don.....
Poor Don do the real scientist not want to listen to you....Do they laugh when you tell them their wrong, because they know how ignorant of the subject matter you are...What was it again political science well i can see how they would equipment to evaluate climate modelling.

"What (if anything) can be done about the IPCC?"

Allow it to die a slow death. Starve it of attention. Don't give it the attention it seeks. Starve it of funds.

It's in terminal decline anyway. ClimateGate revealed how corrupt the whole process is. There is no end to the politics and ideological bias that drices the selection bias in the contents of its reports.

But it really doesn't matter anymore. The vast majority of people have moved on from being scared spitless about Catastrophic AGW. They realise that economic development is far more important and is the best treatment and best preparation for dealing with whatever risks the world faces.

The policy analysists are now starting to say more clearly what they've known all along - e.g. the utter stupidity of the policies the Greenies have been promoting for the past 25 years: Kyoto. carbon pricing, renewable energy, anti-nuclear, etc).

Here's an excellent article from a week ago in the Economist on:
"Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought"
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

And here is 'TheEnergyCollective' on
"Can Nuclear Make a Substantial Near-Term Contribution?"
http://theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/448701/can-nuclear-make-substantial-near-term-contribution

Surely this must be a joke.
Aitkin urges us to ignore the overwhelming evidence for man made climate change by thousands of scientists from all over the world because 2 politicians urge caution.
Yes Don, of course we all realise how much more objective politicians are compared to scientists and how much rigour (dare I say 'scientific' rigour?) they bring to their decision making processes.
Why on Earth would we not give more credence to 2 politicians over 2000 scientists?
The simple and obvious answer to the “it's natural” argument is clearly that, if what's happening today is natural, then what happened yesterday was also natural. And what happened last year, and a hundred years ago, and ten thousand years ago...
10,000 years ago the human population was about 1 million. Today, over 7,000,000,000. In flatulence alone, you'd reckon that would have to make an impact.
10,000 years ago, around 50% of land area was covered in forests. Today, less than 25%
10,000 years ago, the amount of fossil fuels being dug up and deliberately being converted into atmospheric gases approximately... nil. Today, burning of fossil fuels creates more than 21,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 every singe year.
And (Don would have us believe) the indisputable fact that the world is getting warmer is just a coincidence, and nothing needs to be done. Despite everything we've done, it's not our fault; or if it is our fault, it's not our responsibility to do anything about it, or if it is our responsibility, there's nothing we can do about, or if there is something we can do it will cost too much anyway.
If you detect a suspicious smell, I'm sure it wasn't Don.

Absolutely agree with GRIM! Commonsense is arguably the most rare commodity.
If all we did, was just select our energy options, on the lowest to us possible price, we'd prefer cheaper than coal thorium, and very local micro-grids, that then more than would halve the cost of industrial energy, and indeed, have the energy dependent, high tech industries queuing to relocate here!
Currently, we Aussies waste around 8 billion dollars worth of food PA, which invariably finds its way to landfill, and from where it can generate methane. A greenhouse gas, that per unit is worth 21 units of carbon!
When we could just shove it into insinkerators, that then allows this waste to be fed into bio-digestors, along with other biological waste; that then produces methane; that then is scrubbed and fed into storage bladders; that then can be fed into super silent ceramic fuel cells, that then power our homes, office buildings, hospitals and what have you, 24/7!
And do so whether the wind blows, the river do or don't run and whether or not the sun shines!
And for far less than the cheaper than coal, thorium option, all while providing endless free domestic hot water, and a range of other useful products, just one on which is high carbon, nitrate and phosphate rich, perfectly sanitized organic fertilizer!
I mean who cares if the IPCC are right wrong or over/underselling the risks!
It just doesn't matter!
When all we need worry about is the cheapest possible energy options, and then just let copycats and the least expensive options take care of any element of man made climate change!
Absolutely nothing else is needed or useful!
Wake up! We just don't need this debate or the quite massive time wasting it creates!
I mean, and lets face it, it's the economy stupid!
Rhrosty

Dear Don, You may not like the conclusions the IPCC have come to and you are entitled to your opinions. For my money climate change is most certainly occurring driven by massive population increases which in turn are pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Australia will be one of the worst countries to be effected. We certainly need a policy, something that has now been abandoned altogether.

Good article Don.

Keep up the good work, at least for as long as you can. I know it gets tiring trying to talk to dills, or confirmed greenies, who are not interested in the science, or simply can't understand it, even when laid out in words of one syllable.

One thing I find hard to understand is the left right divide on global warming. I can see no reason why those of the left all believe. Are there no people with enough IQ on the left to understand, or are the left minded people prepared to grab any lie to gain a political advantage.

Yes I know the UN agenda is to try to ride the cause to a global government, designed to bring the west down, but can all the left leaning folk of Australia really want to see that, or do they just not understand.

I often wonder just how cold it will have to get before the greenies finally admit they were wrong. Anyway, do keep up the good work.

Don
Just because somebody has studied a scientific subject at university does not make them somehow oracles on the subject of climate change. The two MP you refer to are hardly unbiased.

Peter Lilley is primarily an economist although he claims to have studied natural science at Cambridge University. He has strong financial interests in the oil industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lilley
Quote
“Lilley is currently Vice Chairman and Senior Independent Non-Executive Director at Tethys Petroleum. For this position he received, between 2007 and 2012, $400,000 worth of share options. Between 2012 and mid-June 2013, he was paid more than £70,000 by the company.”

Graham Eric Stringer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Stringer

First of all he is a labour politician and therefore can’t possible be right about anything.
He is a qualified chemist, which is a fair way from climate science.
He was involved in the investigation into the so called climategate affair, where he voted against the other 3 panel members on every occasion.

My biggest problem with him is he does not believe in dyslexia, which I happen to suffer from quite severely. I can assure him it is a real, I did not learn to read until I was 12 and then I taught myself, despite having one on one lessons for a number of years.
If he can be so wrong about something like dyslexia, I have no faith in his ability to judge other fields outside his immediate areas of expertise.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/news/report-ipcc-5-assessment-review

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/140729_statement_UK_report.pdf
Quote
"The committee’s report notes that the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is the best available summary
of the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change currently available to policymakers. It
acknowledges that the conclusions of the report are widely supported in the scientific community
and that its summaries are presented in a way that is persuasive to the lay reader."

A rational paper by the author, which is being attacked by the irrational warmists.

Yet, not one of the warmist camp has been able to table the empirical scientific evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Ideally, the IPCC -- the political animal that it is -- should be euthanised. However, it would be too much to expect the Coalition Government to do this, as the responsible Minister is a committed warmist. The Opposition -- even without Kevin Rudd -- and the Greens would be the last to call for the IPCC's disbandment.

Good article and one that needs ongoing attention.

I would hope that one day soon, people that have spent the last 20+ years believing faithfully will start to question when predictions of appocalypse continually do not come to pass. As this happens IPCC will become increasingly less relevant.

Like all religions, will take time and some's faith may mean that never open their mind to possibilities and the IPCC will always have some support for religious dogma. But like any secular society, rationalism and logic will one day come to the fore.

As pre-empt for any commentators - the question here is CO2 from human sources and impact on climate. There is no debste that increasing population, pollution, development etc all have impact. That is not the role of IPCC which is limited to human induced climate change. I would argue that the former is more important and the IPCC has helped the world has waste decades and $'s instead of tackling more serious issues.

Climate change is the greatest challenge we face - created and exacerbated by population growth - and those that deny it, like Aitkin, are either grossly ignorant or grossly irresponsible. Given Aitkin's holding scientific posts in the past, I can only conclude the latter holds. It is articles such as this that thwarts effective climate action yet, if we remain on the path that we are on, we will have four degrees of warming and that is basically the difference between civilisation and societal breakdown. Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman who writes for the New York Times, once wrote that climate change deniers should be charged with treason. It is certainly a suggestion that bears contemplation.

Re Don's quotes in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of his article - his point seems to be that these two are in disagreement with each other. I can't see how. They both acknowledge the uncertainties (and the certainties).

As for the statement by the two politicians he cites,

It says

The bulk of the main IPCC technical report recognises these uncertainties and is simply a useful compilation of the research in the field.

However, the Summary for Policy Makers is far less balanced than the report it purports to summarise.

So if you think it's got something wrong you can check it out in the main report, it would seem.

The criticism seems to be "the Summary for Policy Makers systematically omits mentioning or plays down key information in the main report"

Well of course a summary will omit things. Whether or not they are key information is something you need a broad and deep understanding of the relevant science to determine.

Does Don have this? He's never given any evidence of it.

As a person who knows a bit (very little, compared with those who work in the area) about the science myself I am frequently amazed to find people who manifestly know less than I do, but see their view on matters of climate science as worth the same as the experts.

Is Don one of those people?

Very good article Don. My leanings are with the over 30 000 scientists who submitted to the senate select committee expressing some doubts regarding the science. As mentioned above, perhaps the IPCC is past it's use by date.

I guess we all suffer from relevance deprivation syndrome at some point. The sad thing about Don Aitken is that his desire to present himself as an iconoclast on climate has led him to jettison all scientific (if not moral) principle.

First, he puts John Zillman’s name forward as if Zillman is disputing the findings of the IPCC. However, in 2001 (after Don’s quote was written) Zillman wrote about the Third IPCC report that it ‘provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of what is currently known, and not known, about the science of climate change’ and that ‘As an assessment process, the Working Group I component of the TAR appeared to work well with more transparent mechanisms employed for resolving or recognizing genuine scientific differences than was the case with the Second Assessment Report. Its essential conclusions appear to have been widely accepted in the scientific community’ (J. Zillman (2001) The IPCC Third Assessment Report on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 8:3, 169-185)

He then cites two UK politicians as experts whose views should somehow take precedence over the conclusions of the scientific community. One, Peter Lilley, has a degree vaguely described as being in natural sciences and economics. He is currently under investigation for not declaring an interest as a director of a petroleum company, for which he was paid tens of thousands of pounds, as well as receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of shares. The second of these UK politicians is Graham Stringer, a graduate in chemistry in 1971 who worked as an industrial chemist. Stringer is famous (infamous?) for claiming that dyslexia is a fiction which doesn’t exist.

So, Don is guilty here of improperly suggesting that Zillman holds views he doesn’t hold, and of garnering support from two politicians whose reputations are a joke.

What’s going on Don?

My general view is that if people comment on what I have written it is part of a good conversation to take note of what they say and respond, if there is a point to respond to. But I don't respond to people who simply dismiss what I say because I am not a natural scientist, or because others have said the opposite and I must be wrong. Nor am I much interested in guesses about my psychological state.

If critics want to dispute what I have written, then show me in particular where I am wrong. I have been responsible for the evaluation of big research projects for thirty years, and overseas as well as here. I can aways be wrong, but if you think so, then show me.

I quoted John Zillman because he made a point about the tension between the scientific and the political that few from within the system ever make. It is true that he is a supporter of the IPCC, and indeed he was a very senior person in it, too. But he is at least aware of some of the problems. I didn't suggest anything more than that.

Don Aitkin,

Of course you're free to express your opinion on climate change as I'm free, as a business school graduate, to express my opinion on quantum mechanics.
To each his own trade, and neither yours nor mine is climatology, I'm assuming you don't have the necessary mathematical or physics qualifications to undertake an informed discussion on the subject. I certainly don't, so I'll rely on the opinions of experts.

What OLO conspicuously lacks are articles by climatologists rather than people with arts or law degrees.

BTW I remember reading your very interesting essays on politics years ago, I can't remember the name of the publication.

Hi Don, with thousands of scientists in 20 or 30 different disciplines all coming to similar conclusions, it is no wonder that their “weight” is crushing those without knowledge who proclaim different directions.

If you track those two "scientists" in Wikipedia, you will find neither has been a practicing research scientist - neither is able to critique climate research science from a basis of knowledge.

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity: AR5 assessed it to be between 2C and 4C. There is uncertainty about the exact value. However those concerned for future of our world would say a value of 2C is terrible, and 4C horrendously so.

All climate science disciplines rely of peer review via published papers. The results presented in any one paper only gain credibility after review by most scientists working in that discipline. It is rigorous peer review.

“Still singing the same hymn”? This means that the science of global warming, first understood and reported in the late 1800’s, is still robust.

Tensions are great - indicating real debate between climate scientists about the differences inherent in different approaches to research. The final reports are authored by hundreds of scientists. Not politicians or government overlords. Presented, debated and summarised by scientists representing many, many scientific disciplines.

Enormous efforts are expended to understand all natural causes of climate change. Only through that activity is the anthropogenic contribution able to be identified.

If your gnutless gnat lives in the ocean, and requires calcium carbonate to make a shell, then beware the acidification of the oceans. Because if the gnutless gnat disappears, all of the food chain above may disappear as well and our oceans become populated with jelly fish and little else.

Don, there is not much political credibility in the IPCC, compared to the credibility of the science it encapsulates.

The state of Australia in the world of Climate Science is very much the making of Greg Hunt. While much of the rest of the world, and in particular China, USA, Germany, are boosting GDP through renewables research and development, deployment and management, Australia is walking backwards.

Grim, you are the joke. You have not adverted to the science, or the Climategate emails, which disclose the dishonesty of the scientists who support the IPCC in its baseless assertions. Billions of dollars have been expended, attempting to produce science to show any effect on climate by human emissions which is measurable.
The resulting science shows that the effect of humans on climate is trivial and not of the significance necessary to be scientifically noticed. The IPCC has nothing to justify its existence.
Thanks, Don, for an excellent commentary on this disgraceful situation

Leo,
You seem to be speaking from ignorance - but that is OK. Most of those who do speek strongly against climate change science do not understand the science.

However, you might understand simple measurements performed by very expensive NASA satellites. The heat energy coming into our earth from the sun is more than the heat energy leaving overnight. Therefore, like the pot of water on a stove, the world warms. This is fact - about 1 watt of additional energy per square metre over the whole earth.

See
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Questions: why is the earth warming? Will it cause harm?
Why would you answer no to both of these questions? Can you explain why such warmth will not heat our air, heat our oceans, increase ferocity of storms, increase number and intenstity of fires, melt ice and snow, and much, much more

What indeed should we do about the IPCC.
As of 2012, the IPCC had an annual budget of just $7 million dollars (US), of which the US contributed about half. The IPCC has a permanent staff of just 11 people.
By comparison, Australia has just awarded a $50 million contract to a Norwegian firm to find a plane that doesn't even belong to us, on top of God knows how much has already been spent, in dollars and man hours.
$7m to address a problem that is and will affect every living thing on this planet. Sounds like a bargain to me.
All scientific and statistical evidence used in IPCC reports has been contributed voluntarily by thousands of scientists from all over the world, yet the hard 'righties' insist we should give more credibility to the handful of dissenting scientists, almost all of whose incomes can be traced to global corporations with a large stake in maintaining the status quo; including unfortunately such highly respected, honest and trustworthy media barons as Rupert...
According to recent polls, 46% of Republicans and even 25% of Tea Partyers believe in Human induced climate change; not bad considering the number of religious nutters who flock to that side of politics.
While weather (and by extension, climate) may be too chaotic to make absolutely accurate predictions about, the physics is conclusive. As Tony153 points out, more energy is entering system Earth than is leaving. Indeed, since 2000 our climate has accumulated the energy equivalent of over 1.9 billion Hiroshima bombs; the figure is rising at the rate of about 3 Hiroshima bombs a second.
Today, about the only people who refuse to accept the science are religious nutters, those with a vested interest (or concerned about their tax dollars being used for purposes not for their immediate benefit) or those whose instant reaction to any news not to their liking is invariably:
“It's all a Communist plot!”
Only ideologues believe there is any place for ideology in science.

"....But I don't respond to people who simply dismiss what I say because I am not a natural scientist, or because others have said the opposite and I must be wrong...."

Which is why Don's articles gain traction on OLO - a site avoided these days by most with credentials in any of the disciplines associated with climate.

The upshot is that in places like OLO, devoid of scientific expertise on the subject, these types articles are debated on ideology - not on science.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/07/mps-who-reject-science-are-undermining-public-interest

"....It is perhaps not surprising that Lilley, who juggles his job as an MP with a part-time post as vice-chairman of Tethys Petroleum, continues to reject the findings of mainstream climate research...."

"....Lilley studied natural sciences and economics.... and Stringer graduated in chemistry."

Not an oceanographer or atmospheric physicist in sight....

Poirot,

Mon ami, it's all part of the game corporate polluters have played since the start of the Industrial Revolution, protect profits and transfer the costs of externalities to the taxpayers. Their advantages are very deep pockets and a gullible public.

so pathetic that the warmist generally are those that have ignored/denied threat of Islam and continue on wanting to waste money/time on trying to defend their atrocious record of predictions, fraudulent use of money and very twisted view of science. The gw religion certainly has left them in their own little imagined world. Still I suppose the deceivers/frauds still push the evolution myth in schools and unis.

Yada, yada, yada, runner.

You're the guy who thinks Evolution is crock.

Next....

Hello Poirot,

You are correct with respect to no oceanographers or atmospheric physicists being in sight - of any of the Energy and Climate Change Committee membership.

From www.parliament.uk - "The Energy and Climate Change Committee is appointed by the British House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and its associated public bodies. It has 11 Members and is chaired by Mr Tim Yeo MP."

From Wikipedia - "Yeo was educated at Charterhouse School, before going on to Emmanuel College at Cambridge University where he read History and graduated in 1968. At university he "did no work, got a poor degree and adored it". And "From 1970-73, Yeo was Assistant Treasurer of Bankers Trust Company. Then, from 1975-86, he was a Director of Worcester Engineering Company. From 1980-83, he was Chief Executive of the Spastics Society (now known as Scope}.

Nope - not a scientist at all. And neither were any of the other 8 MPs who disagreed with Lilley and Stringer and voted to accept the IPCC's report.

Mr Aitkin is quite correct in pointing out the significance of Lilley and Stringer's dissension, ie. 100% of those with scientific credentials in the commitee rejected acceptance of the IPCC report. Now that's the sort of inane cherry-picked overwhelming empirical evidence the likes of warmists enjoy throwing around. 100% scientific consensus!

Impressive, is it not?

No, not really, but then neither is the 97% rubbish.

The significance here is that none of the other 9 on the committee, all MPs, who accepted the IPCC report, had any scientific credentials whatsoever.

The point is that this entire opinion piece is only about the politics of climate - not the science, and I believe that that was Mr Aitkin's purpose in his writing it.

Cheers.

voxUnius,

"Nope - not a scientist at all. And neither were any of the other 8 MPs who disagreed with Lilley and Stringer and voted to accept the IPCC's report."

Here we go again...ya don't think that those without the relevant scientific expertise might defer to those who know what they're talking about (represented by the ICC) - who have expertise, training and experience in the wide field of climate science?

No...we have the likes of you spouting that some guys who studied "some" science - and who have no atmospheric, oceanographic, or climate expertise should be given credence on a subject they know very little about.

Fascinating - how climate "skeptism" works.

"A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity", well go figure ......

Hasbeen, you do know how to find the data on climate, don't you?

We have had scientists on OLO. A particularly good article by Robert Carter does not seem to have elevated the mentality of the fraud-backers on here, who support the IPCC position, despite the lack of science to back it.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=848

Poirot never takes any notice of science. On another thread she showed that her sole basis for support of AGW is her dishonesty. If she has since discovered any science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions on climate, she should tell us. The IPCC certainly have not. They rely on their unsupported assertion that it is “94% certain”. They have no science apart from the demonstration that any such effect is trivial and of no scientific significance.

Our ignoramus commenter Tony 153 has no reference to any such science, but seeks to cover that with inane and pointless comments about identification of human emissions

Leo Lane,

"Poirot never takes any notice of science. On another thread she showed that her sole basis for support of AGW is her dishonesty..."

Lol!...Go for it Leo. Like all your another statements on climate, that one is pulled out of fresh air - as if it has some sort of credence because Leo says so.

Displays perfectly your style.

I have come to the conclusion that Leo Lane is in fact a computer bot. Him, her or its comments follow a very strict formula. It has only three comments
1 XXX is dishonest
2 Its all a fraud
3 XXX has no science followed by a personal insult.

Please spell Leo Lane backwards before I will believe you are human.

Leo Lane,

According to what I could discover on the net, Bob Carter is a palaeontologist, not a climatologist and he works for the IPA. The article was posted in 2003, presumably all the research during the last 11 years doesn't count.
Well, yes, he's a scientist.

Is there another 'Bob Carter?

Hi Leo,
I have a very simple question for you. Can you answer it truthfully - but just to yourself. Don't tell your answer to anyone else.

Here is the question:
"Do you ever plan tomorrows activities based on today's forecast for tomorrow?"

If your answer is yes, then you are trusting the climate science built into the Bureau of Meteorolgy's computer models - that is the same science that is incorporated into Climate Change models.

If your answer is no, you are, at least, consistent.

I guess you have heard of Ian Plimer, Lord Monkton, Michael Asten, Bob Carter (of course), Bill Kinninmonth? Given that 97% of thousands of climate researchers agree with the science, you might suggest that those people belongs in the other 3%. They dont - they are not climate researchers. The Heartland Institure in the US funds people such as Bob Carter to dispute climate science. That organisation also supports Intelligent Design in preference to the theory of evolution. I understand it receives some finding from the billionair Koch brothers, who made their fortunes in the fossil fuel industry.

Try to be a little more discriminating when seeking scientific comment on climate change.

Thanks, Poirot and warmair, for confirming that you have no science to show any significance of human emissions to global warming. You continue to base your assertion of AGW on your dishonesty, and not on science.
Here is something that Robert Carter wrote last year, mac, relevant to the IPCC, the puppet of the United Nations:
“Meanwhile, the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth's natural variations of temperature.
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution.
Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future.
It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true. So who has been telling us these scientific whoppers?
The United Nations, that's who”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390

There is no basis upon which the IPCC should continue to exist

Leo - you should be a standup commedian.

Bob Carter is not a source of knowledable understanding of climate change science.

Just go to the Bureau of Meteorolgy - and see that temperature records are still being set.
Go to NASA and check their data.
Search the web to find out about huge forest fires in the Arctic regions of Canada and Siberia.
Check out California for record low water supplies.
Check the results from over 3000 ARGO bouys measuring ocean temperatures down to a km or so deep - showing that over 90% of the warming being experienced is occurring in the oceans.
Check the rapid loss of ice in the Arctic, and the west Antarctic ice sheet.
Look at continuing droughts in western NSW and Qld.
Look at the Syrian war, initiated by 4 year drought along the Euphraties River, and the consequent displacement of amost a million residents from rural to city living - with no Government support - leading to rebellion.

From what ethical basis do you ignore all of this to pillory climate scientists?

I apologise for not keeping to a resolution made many months ago - to not debate with those who do not "get" what is happening, or who appear to be doing all they can to leave our children and grandchildren an atrocious environment.

One last question: "do you care?"

Discussion here is like so many others on this topic. Filled with religous fevor (one poster has even suggested contemplating Krugmans comment about treating non believers with treason, and we all know what sort of society comes with no free speech). Once upon a time everyone believed that that the sun revolved around the earth, there was consensus apart from an odd skeptic.

I am stunned that the obviously smart people posting here do not harbor any doubt about humans impact on climate change. Surely after so many years of doomsday predictions failing to come true there must be some independent thought coming through....? It's time to watch Al Gore's movie again, recognising that it's just not going the way predicted.

Again, to pre-empt - no denial that humans have impact, no denial that CO2 has some impact, but the size and our response on CO2 only are highly questionable. Just think what could have been done with all that wasted $'s. Trees planted, salinity controlled, species protected etc. We should be ashamed that science has been abused so badly. As a scientist, I am.

Hi Roobs,
I am not sure what sort of scientist you are, but I would guess not a climate change scientist. Al Gore's movie very prescient. Things that are happening now are worse that what was predicted.

You might like to look at this 7 minute video.

http://youtu.be/2K2s2EjsXJI

Thanks Tony 153, for clarifying your mindset as a fraud-backer.
You commend the BOM, the same BOM that told the outright lie about our temperature record earlier this year. It demonstrated the desperation of the AGW fraud-backers to show an upward trend in temperature where none exists. The bright idea about the warming hiding in the ocean did not stand up to scrutiny, but that does not deter you from talking nonsense.
Gore’s film told 35 lies in 19 minutes, and if any of it coincided with reality, it is purely by accident
Have you left school yet, Tony? Your posts are quite puerile.

I always find it strange how Don Aitkin always seems to be able to find a couple of slightly prominent people who support his opinions and then parades those people as fountains of truth. This time we have two British politicians, who's apparent claims to fame are they studied some science at University. I am sure there are other British politicians who studied science at University who did not vote against the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee’s report on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Report, but why did Don not mention them?

It is simply one great argument from authority and a not very convincing argument at that. Rather than an argument from authority, how about explaining how the IPCC summary for policy makers is wrong?

Don, perhaps you could start with the first highlighted statement in the report:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased"

Agronomist if you wish anyone to pay any attention to these wild statements you claim are facts, put some proof with them.

Any idiot can make claims, or refer to some unknown authority.

From Hasbeen “Agronomist if you wish anyone to pay any attention to these wild statements you claim are facts, put some proof with them.”

First claim: that British MPs with a science degree did not vote against the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee’s report on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Report and Don Aitkin does not mention them.

Membership of the relevant committee is here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenergy/587/58701.htm

As well as Lilley and Stringer, Dr Phillip Lee, and Sir Robert Smith studied science at university. Neither voted against the report, neither were mentioned by Don Aitkin.

Second claim: that the IPCC wrote: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased”

You can find the quote here http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Agronomist,

You cite the AR5 SPM as follows (my numbers allow me to comment later): '(1) Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and (2) since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. (3) The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, (4) sea level has risen, and (5) the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.'

You ask for my reaction(s). (1) I think it is likely that the climate system has warmed, but the data do not allow us to say accurately by how much, let alone whether or not the warming is harmful to humans or 'the eco-system'. Some of the consequences of the warming since 1979 seem to have been beneficial. There seems to have been no warming of any significance in the last decade or so.

(2) The palaeo data do not allow us to say whether or not observed recent changes are unprecedented, though they can be suggestive. Palaeo data come with their own errors, and a broad-scale — our recent changes are measured in years, but that is too fine a scale for ice-cores.

(3) These changes are not linear. Some glaciers are advancing, and the amount of ice does not seem to have changed much (Antarctic sea-ice is at record levels, and Antarctica contains about 90 per cent of the world's ice).

(5) Yes, green house gases have been increasing while temperatures have not. You really have to search the Report to find any recognition of this fact.

(4) Sea levels have been rising slowly and steadily for a long time, according to tide gauges. Current levels at 3mm per year, do not suggest anything dramatic.

(5) Greenhouse gas emissions have been rising while temperature seems not to have done, something that is hidden in AR5.

A dramatic introduction that is so easily questioned hardly inspires confidence in the rest of the report.

So I watched the youtube video that Tony153 linked. Seems an odd way to refute the religous nature of the climate change movement by suggesting I watch a video featuring some the the priests of the movement (Trenbath, Mann etc).

As mentioned earlier, I expect the IPCC to slowly become less relevant as people wake up that the predicted appocolpse has not happened. Data and facts do not compete well in an argument against faith, but slowly think will win out.

(1) I think it is likely that the climate system has warmed, but the data do not allow us to say accurately by how much, let alone whether or not the warming is harmful to humans or 'the eco-system'. Some of the consequences of the warming since 1979 seem to have been beneficial. There seems to have been no warming of any significance in the last decade or so.

The claim by the IPCC is for warming since the 1950s. What has happened in the last decade does not contradict this. “but the data do not allow us to say accurately by how much” is merely an attempt to obfuscate. The warming might be 0.67 C or 0.68 C. The fact that the figure is not absolutely accurate does not mean there has been no warming going on. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

(2) The palaeo data do not allow us to say whether or not observed recent changes are unprecedented, though they can be suggestive. Palaeo data come with their own errors, and a broad-scale — our recent changes are measured in years, but that is too fine a scale for ice-cores.

Ice cores have annual rings, so why are yearly changes not able to be measured? Because they are yearly, there is plenty of data to estimate rates of warming. http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/strat_dating/

(3) These changes are not linear. Some glaciers are advancing, and the amount of ice does not seem to have changed much (Antarctic sea-ice is at record levels, and Antarctica contains about 90 per cent of the world's ice).

Total ice has decreased. You are obfuscating again. http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

(4) Sea levels have been rising slowly and steadily for a long time, according to tide gauges. Current levels at 3mm per year, do not suggest anything dramatic.

Um No http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

(5) Greenhouse gas emissions have been rising while temperature seems not to have done, something that is hidden in AR5.

Temperatures have risen since the 1950s which is the claim. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Would you like to have another go Don?

Don, excellent answer to Agronomist.

But you didn't explain what is far more important. That is, even if correct, all his points are irrelevant. They are not relevant unless the impacts of human caused warming are stated and the uncertainties are stated.

I’ll add my responses to Agronomist’s questions as you numbered them:
“Don, excellent answer to Agronomist.

“Agronomist,

You cite the AR5 SPM as follows:
(1) Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and
(2) since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.
(3) The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished,
(4) sea level has risen, and
(5) the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.'”

My responses:
1. Yes, the climate has warmed, just as it has done many times in the past. The changes have no been attributed to human causes; or more correctly the uncertainties are so large as to make the studies that have attempted to attribute cause to human effects make such attribution meaningless
2. Disingenuous and probably wrong. The evidence is not available. But what paleo-evidence is available demonstrates the have been much larger and much faster warming and cooling events in the past.
3. So what? And anyway, this says nothing about attribution.
4. Yes, sea level has risen and fallen in the past too. No evidence to attribute it to human causes
5. Yes. The evidence is that has don’t a lot more good than harm so far, and is likely to continue to do so for most of this century.

To Don, some corrections.
1. Yes some glaciers are advancing - they happen to be sited above the freezing layer. Because of higher sea surface warmth, more evaporation, so such glaciers receive more precipitation. Such advance is in agreement with a warming world.
2. Global Warming data shows that the rate of that warming has decreased - but is still happening. The term “Global Warming” applies JUST to that very small segment of our atmosphere that is in contact with earth's land and water surface. It is not measuring what is happening in the broader atmosphere, nor the ocean below sea level. Much of the world's warming is now occurring in the oceans down to 1km under the surface. Just GOOGLE ARGO buoys for precise information - over 3000 of them.
3. Antarctic sea ice is expanding because of global warming - causing stronger polar winds which tend to push ice away from the continent, and the resultant gaps refreezing. Also unprecedented melting around the west Antarctic ice sheet is releasing more fresh water which is easier to freeze that normal salty ocean water
4. See page 1139 in IPCC WG1AR5 document on the Physical Science to get a correct view of sea level rise. The rate of sea level rise has been increasing over recent decades.
5. Page 37 of that document refutes Don's comment on temperature increase - it has continued, and is continuing to rise, along with CO2 concentration.
6. It is disappointing that Don does not reference any research that supports his assertions.
7. When corroborating evidence is not supplied, anyone can question anything, but don’t expect such views to be respected.

To Leo:
1. Unfortunately your comments continue to reflect lack of knowledge. For the record, I have a PhD in Atmospheric Science, have worked with the Bureau of Meteorology for over 12 years and spent a year in the Antarctic. BUT I am not a research scientist.

To Peter Lang,
1. Are you familiar with isotopes - that is, elements, such as uranium, that have different numbers of neutrons in their nucleus?
2. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is bombarded by high energy cosmic rays (as are all other components of the atmosphere). A certain proportion of these carbon atoms are converted into different isotopes - still carbon, but with differnt numbers of neutrons
3. Carbon that has been buried for millions of years do not have such isotopes. Such isotopes that may have been there when forests were first burried have long since passed many lifetimes, and reverted to normal carbon
4. It is relatively easy to determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that has come from fossil fuels - burnt by us - and adding to the thickness of the CO2 blanket which, incidentally, has prevented our planet from turning into a snow ball for millennia.
5. What has been keeping us warm on this world, keeps us warmer if it gets thicker - which it is and warmer we are getting.

Thanks for the background, Tony, it helps me understand why you are a fraud-backer, and post such tripe.
I suppose if you spent time in Antarctica, you would have struck someone like Chris Turney to develop your ideas, which would be worse for you than developing them in the playground.
You should have known better from your experience than to recommend BOM as a reliable source of information

Don,

"Yes, green house gases have been increasing while temperatures have not..."

To be precise: "air surface temperature" has plateaued at record levels.

Oceans are still warming.

"....and the amount of ice does not seem to have changed much (Antarctic sea-ice is at record levels, and Antarctica contains about 90 per cent of the world's ice)."

So this kind of report from NASA means nothing to you?

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic-ice-sheet-20140512/

"The pace and magnitude of the changes observed in this region match the expectation that Amundsen Sea embayment glaciers should be less stable than others. In some cases, the changes have outstripped expectations."

It's the sheer pace of warming that matters....the speed of human release of CO2 is, in paleo terms, a sudden outgassing.

Our civilisation has developed in a human-friendly climate niche - the planet seldom produces epochs like ours.

We're messing with it....

Tony153,

>"4. It is relatively easy to determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that has come from fossil fuels - burnt by us - and adding to the thickness of the CO2 blanket which, incidentally, has prevented our planet from turning into a snow ball for millennia.
5. What has been keeping us warm on this world, keeps us warmer if it gets thicker - which it is and warmer we are getting."

Apparently you have not recognised the gaping hole in your argument. 'Down in the weed's discussion about climate science, photons, molecules, etc. are irrelevant. You need to show, persuasively, that man's GHG emissions are 1) net bad for the world, and 2) net bad to such an extent that the policies proposed to mitigate the damages will do more good than harm. You haven't even attempted that. So, your arguments are irrelevant. They are no more persuasive than arguments about the existence of a God.

Quote Don
"1) I think it is likely that the climate system has warmed, but the data do not allow us to say accurately by how much, let alone whether or not the warming is harmful to humans or 'the eco-system'"

Don the 'the eco-system' is showing many signs of serious stress and there is plenty of evidence of harm occurring.

Just a few examples off the top of my head:-

There has been a serious decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.

Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

There are numerous examples of bleaching effects on coral due to excessive water temperatures.

Altering the Ph of the ocean affects the ability of a range of shell fish to make their own shells. I saw a show recently where an oyster farmer in America had to alter the Ph of the water in his tanks because they were unable to make shells using the local seawater.

Loss of ice in the arctic reduces the abundance of algae which cascades right up the food chain.

Loss of species due to maintain habitat becoming too warm, for example see the Panamanian golden frog for details.

Tundra is being invaded by low scrub and is reducing the range available to a number of migratory animals such as Caribou.

Spring is now some 15 to 20 days earlier than several decades ago this puts the timing out for a number of species, for example the European pied flycatcher has not changed the time it arrives on its breeding grounds even though the caterpillars it feeds its young are emerging earlier.

Checkerspot Butterflies in Yosemite National Park are not copping with increasing temperature and numbers are all falling sharply in its southern range.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/teachingclimate/ecological_impacts_of_climate_change.pdf

Recent serious flooding events around the globe are related to record downpours which are one of the anticipated consequences of climate change.

For heaven's sake, Agronomist, why don't you write your own piece so we can see just how you think it should be done? My position is that there is a great deal of uncertainty in all the data. Even Eric Steig, a climate scientist who supports the orthodoxy, has written a long paper about all the uncertainties in ice-core data, and how he hopes that in the future the accuracy can be brought down, which he thinks will happen in time. (See https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf) There's scads of other stuff about uncertainty.

At the moment the problem is that there needs to be some kind of independent verifiability of the dating of the ice cores. You can do this if there is a known volcanic eruption (such as Krakatoa or Tambora), but the further back we go the harder it is to find any reliable marker. And the deeper the core the more the annual snow layers become compressed into ice. Yes, everyone is working on how to find ways through, but no, we do not have palaeo data which are exactly comparable to today's instrumental records, such as they are.

Come on, this is widely known. I could say something comparable about each of the 'corrections' that you offer.

To repeat — you write your piece, because you are a scientist and can show the rest of us the right way to do it. I'm sure OLO would publish it.

Don't know whether I should chuck this into the fray or not...but since this thread is taking all comers....and since this hypothesis has made Nature

Methane holes in Siberia?

http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649

"Mysterious Siberian crater attributed to methane

Build-up and release of gas from thawing permafrost most probable explanation, says Russian team."

"But Plekhanov and his team believe that it is linked to the abnormally hot Yamal summers of 2012 and 2013, which were warmer than usual by an average of about 5°C. As temperatures rose, the researchers suggest, permafrost thawed and collapsed, releasing methane that had been trapped in the icy ground.

Other researchers argue that long-term global warming might be to blame — and that a slow and steady thaw in the region could have been enough to free a burst of methane and create such a big crater. Over the past 20 years, permafrost at a depth of 20 metres has warmed by about 2°C, driven by rising air temperatures1, notes Hans-Wolfgang Hubberten, a geochemist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Potsdam, Germany."

Some people want 100% certainty.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar5-science-basis/

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

We are more certain about some things more than ever, we won't ever have absolute certainty, Don.

Don Aitkin, I am well aware that there is uncertainty in measurements of climate. However, as I pointed out above these limitations in measurements do not suddenly stop the Earth from warming.

I don’t write my own piece because I am not really an expert in this area (after all I am an agronomist) and I know my limitations. However, I have sufficient basic scientific expertise to know that you write from a position of almost complete ignorance of the science (at least that is how your articles come across) and therefore your opinions are of little value. I would much rather see you address issues where you more likely have some expertise, such as the political impediments to taking action and how these might be addressed, instead of this climate denier claptrap you write.

>"However, as I pointed out above these limitations in measurements do not suddenly stop the Earth from warming. "

That is a really dumb statement. It's incredible that someone who claims they have been trained in science would make such a statement. You should know better. No one who understands the most basic concepts of science or engineering would argue that uncertainty in a measurement has any effect on the physical process that cause changes to the parameters being measured.

The fact you write such a silly statement means you either have little understanding about science or about the subject. Or you are just a person who repeats the mantra of others without understanding it. If the latter, it suggest you are possible a political propagandist or a cult follower - i.e. a Climate Cultist.

>"I don’t write my own piece because I am not really an expert in this area "

You've demonstrated in spades that you are not an expert in the area. You clearly read only what supports the Climate Cultist's cult beliefs.

Hi Peter,
You have missed your calling. Should be an orchardist. Your comment on measurement uncertainty is a perfect piece of cherry picking.

Tony153,

>"You have missed your calling. Should be an orchardist. Your comment on measurement uncertainty is a perfect piece of cherry picking."

I don't know on what basis you say that my comment "is a perfect piece of cherry picking".

I responded to the opening line of Agronomist's comment which is a perfect example of a strawman argument - i.e. he attributed a bogus argument to those he disagrees with - i.e. he made up something they did not say and then attackjed the bogus statements. If you don't know it, that is one of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/.

it was so blatant I dismiss Agronomist as fundamentally dishonest. Nothing he says on his Climate beliefs from now on can be interpreted other than his arguments are based on partisan political advocacy, or ideology or cult beliefs - the Climate Cultists. I am persuaded it is the latter.

Your comment leads me to suspect you of the same, since you didn't respond to - or chose to avoid addressing - the substance of the reply I addressed to you.

“ ...other than his arguments are based on partisan political advocacy, or ideology or cult beliefs”
Seriously?
This from a man who consistently prefers to get his science from the Heartland institute, funded almost entirely by the Koch brothers and other major polluters, and refuses to accept any evidence offered by virtually every credible scientific institution in the world...
Nope. No 'partisan political advocacy, ideology or cult beliefs' there.

Peter, you seem to have overlooked the fact that fraud-backing is based on either dishonesty or ignorance. Agronimist is not ignorant. Neither is Tony or warmair. They have no science to support their position, so resort to baseless criticism of the person pointing out the truth. Their favourite inanity is “cherry picking”. It is the most frequent of their nonsense responses when they are exposed, and not a serious response requiring reply

The science has been settled, the climate is changing.
This year has been an extremely expensive year for Insurance Companies through the very weather patterns that climate scientists have warned us about. For example, earlier this year Boulder, Colorado; had rainfall of 18 inches of rain in 8 days, 18 inches being their yearly total.


An International Scientific Research Group is operating right now from the Swedish icebreaker Oden. They have found worrying levels of methane being voided from the Laptev Sea. Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas.
Methane is contained by extremely cold temperatures, Arctic waters are becoming warmer through influences such as the Gulf Stream.
April of this year presented as providing the lowest extent of sea ice maxima recorded. Fortunately, at this stage we do not look as though we will be hearing of a record minimum sea ice level in September. However, the sea ice level will be very low in comparison to 1979. The sea ice level in September will be determined by the strength and number of storms experienced in that area between now and mid September. Whatever sea ice is recorded in September, it will still be showing the downward trend line.
Ash being deposited on ice sheets and sea ice from very major fires in Siberia and Northern Canada do not bode well for 2015; through the reflective nature of snow and ice being changed (albedo factor.)

Don,
Many earlier posts address all of the points you attempted to make in your original article. You have not rebutted them, and presumably you accept them.

In your latest post, you slip your interest to uncertainties, which you posit undo much of climate science. It is akin to you deciding not to drive to Sydney because of uncertainties in your arrival time. Uncertainty pervades all aspects of life. In terms of risk analysis, you would seem to go with the 5% option when there is a 95% probability that humans are responsible for most of the warming being experienced today. You seem to demand 100% certainty with regard to climate science, but not when insuring your house or car. Unless there is a 100% certainty of your house catching fire, you will not insure!

With regard to your reference, the author states “Ice cores provide unique contributions to the reconstruction of past climate”, and “ice core records are best known for the information they provide on millennial and longer timescales”. Most of his paper relates to getting greater accuracy with regard to shorter timescale climate and climate forcing reconstructions. That paper in no way supports your position that uncertainties undermine climate science.

You comment that “there’s scads of other stuff about uncertainty” which is lazy way of attempting to make a point. Uncertainty is well covered in the IPCC attributes of “confidence” and “likelihood” that are attached to most IPCC projections.

Unfortunately, I see much of your commentary as a set of strawmen, each with no substance.

Oh - and by the way, snow is ice - forget about your compression bit.

Agronomist, I regard your last remarks about my writing as personal, offensive and ignorant, and I make no further response to you.

Tony 153, I moved to uncertainty because Agronomist offered as conclusive, individual references to ice, sea levels and so on, all of which however come with uncertainty, and all of which have been countered by others. My position is that there is too much uncertainty for any government to have gone down the path of, for example, carbon taxes, which cost everyone and have no discernible effect on temperature. There are dozens of posts on my website that deal with these matters. You can find them by going there and searching. The notion that I should rebut every comment that is made on OLO seems pretty fanciful to me. As I said to Agronomist, OLO is likely to be open to anyone like yourself who can write a thousand-word article that sets out why sceptics like me must be completely wrong.

For obvious reasons, it's not enough just to say 'IPCC!', and leave it at that. The latest IPCC report has over a hundred references to uncertainty, and yet the confidence of the authors that they are right, and that dire warming stares us in the face, is even greater than it was in AR4.

With respect to the Steig paper, which I think is a good one, the second of the quotes you provide from it says that ice core data are best if you want to compare thousand-year periods. Agronomist said that because ice-cores have annual rings it must be possible to measure yearly changes. It is, but the error is really large. That's why ice-core data are best for broad-scale comparisons, which is what I said.

Don, thanks for yor response - I did not expect one.

By the way, you are not a skeptic. Skeptics accept new information and may change their mind as a result. All research scientists are skeptics. You are more in the denier mould - irrespective of information from whatever the source (such as NASA, NOAA, BOM, CSIRO,and hundreds of other science based organisations), your view would not change - as I understand it.

I would think there would be many hundreds of uncertainty estimates in the IPCC reports - annotated as “confidence” and “likelihood” couplets. All science has uncertainties / error bars / confidence&likleihood estimates as part of their results. You have not mentioned any confidence / likelihood couplet from the recent IPCC documents that invalidates the IPCC conclusions. If you could find say 20 such estimates and argue why those values invalidate the science, you might have a logical position to stand on. You could start with one couplet, and move on from there.

No need. The IPCC report contains more than hundred references to uncertainty, and of course lots of error bars. That is not the point, which is that the report accepts again and again that there is uncertainty, that various things are not known, that there are various estimates for climate sensitivity — but remains committed to the view that global warming is occurring, that it is caused by human activity, and that the outlook is dangerous. The evidence for each of those assertions is weak, awkward, convoluted and based, much of it, on models that have not been verified or validated, and did not predict the long cessation of warming.

What is more, the Report does not anywhere, anywhere at all, come to terms with the mismatch between prediction and observations, and set out why it prefers one set of evidence to another, and one set of arguments to others. It does not even recognise that there could be reasoned criticism of its position.

Now — you're the critic. I have read the SPM and much of WG1, and all of AR4 and its SPM, and much of 3AR. Why don't you do some work, and show me where I have got that wrong. Show me the big section that shows why the sceptics are really wrong?

If you will allow me to do so, I will remain an agnostic about the view that human beings have brought about the warming that has occurred, and completely sceptical that carbon taxes and their like are of any virtuous consequence that I can see. An agnostic is always open to new evidence. If you have some, please provide it.

Tony153,

"Don,
By the way, you are not a skeptic. Skeptics accept new information and may change their mind as a result. All research scientists are skeptics. You are more in the denier mould ..."

That seems to be a clear example of projection.

How do you know it isn't you that is the denier? What have you don'e to define what would change your mind?

There is no sign of any rational scepticism in any of what you write. You are simply repeating the mantra of the Climate Cultists. You won't engage in addressing what is relevant for policy analysis. You avoided answering my comment about the facts that are relevant for policy analysis.

So, I'd call you a denier of the policy relevant facts and, since the purpose of the alarmists is to get 'action', the policy relevant facts are all that matters.

I'd urge you to stop calling Don a "denier" and stop being a denier yourself. Address the relevant issues, not the irrelevancies you want to keep yapping about.

Don,
Your comment above: "The evidence for each of those assertions is weak, awkward, convoluted and based, much of it, on models that have not been verified or validated, and did not predict the long cessation of warming." needs to be supported by reference to source information supporting your views.Seeing as you refused my challenge, I will address yours. Check page 18 or WG1AR5. It shows projections without increasing CO2 impacts, projections with CO2 impacts and observed. By the way, please provide verifiable facts, if you can, that warming has ceased. You could try Professor Muller who thought as you did.....

If you cant discuss one uncertainty from AR5 and give reasons why it renders anthropogenic warming invalid, I will assume you cant or wont.

Peter,
As soon as you provide a link to research facts that proves global warming is a hoax, I guarantee that I will read, review, and change my mind if appropriate. Over to you....

Tony,153
>'As soon as you provide a link to research facts that proves global warming is a hoax, "

Another example of Misrepresentation and the the continual dishonesty of the Climate Cultists. Just making up stuff and saying I said it. It's all the climate cultists have left.

You still avoid dealing with what's relevant to policy analysis.

Grim replied to me:
>”This from a man who consistently prefers to get his science from the Heartland institute, funded almost entirely by the Koch brothers and other major polluters, and refuses to accept any evidence offered by virtually every credible scientific institution in the world...”

Please quote the examples to support your strawman assertion.

This is another example of the strawman arguments and intellectual dishonesty frequently displayed by the Climate Cultists.

Have you no personal, professional or intellectual integrity whatsoever?

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf

“In general, each 1°C of global temperature increase can be expected to produce: “

“• 5-10% changes in stream flow across many river basins”
(15-30%)

“• 5-15% reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown”
(15-45%)

“• 200-400% increases in the area burned by wildfire in parts of the western United States”
(600-1200%)

Figures in brackets are for a 3°C rise which is very likely by 2100.

Europe Similar to above this time base is for 2°C warming

Typical 20 year heat waves will see temperatures soar by 4° in regions such as Spain, Portugal, France and the Balkans taking these events well over 40°C

Flooding
“Northern Europe is likely to see more rain in both winter and summer. Central Europe will receive more rain in winter but less in summer, while southern Europe could see summer rainfall decrease by as much as a fifth.”

Asia Africa and Middle East

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/06/19/what-climate-change-means-africa-asia-coastal-poor

The major problems are the reduction in food production due to increased temperatures and sea level rise inundating important food producing areas, such as the Mekong delta.

The current world population is 7 billion but on current projections we will have another 3 billion people to feed by 2100, so we will have to feed 42% more people while coping with a 30% reduction in yield.

On uncertainty if you know you are going crash, but uncertain whether going to crash at 60 or 90 Kph you would be wise to put on your seat belt.

The science is settled is it, ant? “the Royal society stated that: “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect —“
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/climate-change/royal-society-issues-revised-statement-on-climate-change.html
That was rhe President of the Royal Society five years ago. The current president believes in consensus, and is a fraud-backer, but even he makes no assertion that the science is settled. This is another statement by you completely unsupported by any science or evidence.

"Widely agreed issues include the following:

Surface temperatures have warmed by 0.8C since 1850 in two bursts, one between 1910 and 1940 and the other from 1975 to around 2000.

Global average carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from around 280ppm in the mid-nineteenth century to around 388ppm by the end of 2009; and are higher than any observed in the last 800,000 years.

The net human climate forcing is around 1.6W/sq.m; this level of forcing will lead to a 0.4C average surface warming.

The relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the climate is active so that changes in either will affect the other."

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/climate-change/royal-society-issues-revised-statement-on-climate-change.html

While there is always room for new knowledge, the Royal Society concludes that the main issues: the Earth is warming and human activities that put additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are widely agreed.

Oh dear, more fraud backers.

Hi Don,
One last posting (probably). If you really wish Climate Change to go away, metaphorically, rather than playing scrabble word games (where can I find a place to insert uncertainty bombs), you should try to invalidate some or all of the following statements (a subset of hundreds of such statement):

1. 1896 research by Svante August Arrhenius showing that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the surface temperature of the world by 4C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

2. NOAA showing increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth

3. NASA CO2 concentration graph showing current CO2 levels to be much higher than it has been for at least 400,000 years
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

4. Increasing mean temperatures for Australia between 1910 and 2013
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries

5. Decreasing Arctic ice from 1979 to 2014
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

6. Climate change may have impacted the severity of Cyclone Sandy
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-we-link-hurricane-sandy-to-climate-change-98794096/?no-ist

7. With regard to Qld floods in 2011: “A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture and will most likely increase the intensity of extreme rainfall events”
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Environment/Australian-Landscapes/Understanding-Floods.aspx

8. Satellite measurement show that less heat is leaving the earth than is incoming from the sun, resulting in the earth warming
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

9. For the recent and unprecedented floods in England: There is also an increasing body of evidence that shows that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense, and that the rate of increase is consistent with what is expected from the fundamental physics of a warming world.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014/uk-storms-and-floods

10. Climate Change may have played a role in the Syrian uprising, resulting in war
http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/06/10/syria-water-climate-change-and-violent-conflict/

11. Climate change is responsible for more frequent and larger forest fires, such as the ones now plaguing the Canadian Northwest Territories
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/tornadoes-of-fire-in-n-w-t-linked-to-climate-change-1.2706131

Cheers, Tony

In all this continual, boring repetition of the mantra about down-in-the-weeds science details we've been hearing for the past >20 years, the Climate Cultists still don't get it. This stuff is irrelevant for policy analysis. They are continually bashing their heads against a wall repeating their mantra. They just don't understand what is important.

Until they can listen to the questions the realists/rationalists need answers to, and address them, the Climate Cultists will continue to yap among themselves, and preach to their own crowd of 'true believers'. They wont persuade rationalists until they can address the rationalist's concerns. For example, the proposed policies will not make the slightest different to the climate but will do great harm to humanity by damaging the economy of any countries unwise enough to implement them.

Hi Tony,
Here is the link to peer reviewed , published paper which disproves AGW:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011637/abstract
The warming hypothesized by fraud backers to be human caused, is warming caused by Nature.

Tony,

If you think that these eleven references show the 'truth' about global warming then I can see why you hold the views you do. But I don't give them the same value as you do, at all.

Very quickly, (1) the IPCC has given up claiming a likely central estimate for climate sensitivity, and most of the recent published estimates hover around 1-2 degrees C. (2) Yes, CO2 has been increasing, though temperatures haven't, for quite a while. (3) Yes, so what. (4) I've written about the BoM's 'adjustments' on my website. Look it up. (5) Yes, though claims that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015 don't seem to be borne out at all, and Antarctic sea-ice is increasing. (6) Things that 'may' have been the case don't really cut the mustard, do they? (7) See (6). (8) Yes. And no-one seems able to say what has happened, while the amount is not large. (9) See (6). (10) See (6). (11) This is simply a claim, without any kind of compelling evidence. Whatever the extreme weather event, someone is likely to point to it as an example of 'climate change'.

You didn't put in any link to papers that strongly support the view that warming must be bad, and that humans are responsible for it. The IPCC's AR5 pushes that view, but, as I said above, the argument is so convoluted, and so careful to avoid any kind of real debate, that it is hard to take it seriously.

That's it for me.

"You didn't put in any link to papers that strongly support the view that warming must be bad..."

Yes....as has been noted many times by "skeptics", the planet was much warmer in eras past - and the trilobites and molluscs thrived.

Not quite sure how that translates to the enhancement of human civilisation, however....

Don

"You didn't put in any link to papers that strongly support the view that warming must be bad,"

Interesting the scientists who have studied it, think it would be really bad. I would have thought that it was fairly obvious,based on a few simple observations such as faster rates of land drying, more extreme rainfall events, and failure of cold climate food crops, increasing insect damage, etc not to mention bush fires and coastal flooding.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/06/19/what-climate-change-means-africa-asia-coastal-poor

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/1/5570388/the-big-question-just-how-bad-is-global-warming-going-to-get

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report#section-1947

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-impacts/new-south-wales

Approximate decline in production In NSW by
2030 (%)
Wheat,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8.4
Beef,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0.7
Sheep meat,,,,8.1
Dairy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5.5

2050 (%)
Wheat,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11.6
Beef,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3.0
Sheep meat,,,,13.2
Dairy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11.3

Peter, thanks for the reference to the paper on tropospheric warming.

I think there are problems with relating that paper to global warming. Some very simple science – but note that I am not a climate researcher.

When the sun shines, it primarily warms the land and oceans. It does little direct warming of the atmosphere (although clouds would receive energy from sun shine).

The air temperature that we feel is primarily caused by the land and ocean warming or cooling the air. One of many indicators of global warming is the average temperature of that thin layer of air that touches the land and the ocean.

Note that over 90% of the received suns energy is absorbed by oceans. So, the temperature of the air from say 500 meters above the surface to the top of the troposphere has little direct impact of the value of the average surface temperature of the world.

As well, I understand that independent peer review of the paper you referenced found numbers of problems with that paper. I understand its conclusions were not supported.

And, of course, you know that the three authors of that paper are well known for pushing the anti-climate change view, and one apparenty received funding from the Heartland Insstitute to rubbish climate science.

If you want a very simple reference to Climate Change, please do a google search for Argo buoys. Over 3,000 buoys in the world’s oceans. They measure ocean temperatures down to 1km deep.

They are verifying that the oceans are warming. And as they warm, they “expand” like a piece of metal in a fire. This thermal expansion of the oceans is causing some 40% (from memory) of the current sea level rise. And the rate of sea level rise is increasing

>"Peter, thanks for the reference to the paper on tropospheric warming."

What paper are you referring to that you say I referenced?

Hi Don,
A rephrasing of your post. I made no claim about truth. Just asked you to validate negative responses with reasoned logic, if possible. None given. Only platitudes and myths.

1. 1896 research by Svante August Arrhenius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
DA: No comment – basic science not accepted – no reasons provided. Claims that climate sensitivity only 1C to 2C. No supporting evidence. WG1AR5 from IPCC clearly documents, analyses, equilibrium climate sensitivity: 2C to 4C, of course with appropriate confidence and likelihood couplets

2. NOAA and CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth
DA: Accept – but claims no temperature rise for quite a while (presumably he means surface air temperature). Myth propagation with no supporting evidence

3. NASA CO2 much higher than it has been for at least 400,000 years
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
DA: Accept
But says of no concern, with no supporting evidence

4. Increasing mean temperatures http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries
DA: doesn’t accept BOM records. Myth propagation with no supporting evidence
New temp measuring equip forces re-calibration of old records. Old equip may have 0.2C out. Conspiracy claimed – so the blind lead the blind
5. Decreasing Arctic ice from 1979 to 2014
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
DA: Accepts data. States that someone claimed it would be ice free by 2015. No source information provided. Antarctic sea ice increase in accord with global warming (see earlier post)

6. 7. 9. 10. 11. Examples of extreme weather causing much damage and loss of life;
DA: Not accepted - no 100% certainty.
House/car insured because 0.1% chance of fire/accident. But ignore CC risks where probability tween 10% to 95%. Delusional the only word that comes to mind.

8. Less heat is leaving the earth
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php
DON: accepts data, impact small.
A 1 watt difference equals a 1kw bar radiator, turned on, in each 30m by 30 m square around the world.
And Don posits this has no impact, no additional water evaporated to power large storms, not enough heat to turn more of the world into desert, bar radiators everywhere not increasing forest fire risk. Food bowls not impacted. Lazy jet streams depositing winter storms in US, UK, Europe…

Sorry Peter,
I should have mentioned Leo.
Need more coffee

Not so,Tony. The perturbation of the climategate miscreants and their attempt to refute this paper showed up in the climategate emails. They came up with a rebuttal which was easily dismissed despite their attempts to block publication of Mclean’s reply.One of the emails about the attempted rebuttal of Mclean’s paper:

“Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed
it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. Mike is
President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras,
and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My
reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28, 2009”

This shows the perceived urgency of Trenberth and his unethical approach to the publisher

Mclean’s conclusion:
“Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.”

So the warming which the fraud-backers ascribed to human emissions was natural.
Still a fraud-backer, Tony? You just have to ignore the science, like warmair, ant and Agronomist do.Otherwise you would have to give up the fraud and accept reality.

Leo,
Thanks for your post. I think you might be confusing two sets of temperatures. The phrase Global Warming refers to air temperatures at the land / ocean levels. Melbournes air temp might be recorded at 1.5m above the ground. Whereas a troposphere temperature might be the average of temperatures from ground level to 17km high.

Temperatures just above the land / sea surface are still rising and have been doing so for a number of decades. Determining tropospheric temperatures is very complex and involves satellite data. Very different to reading a thermometer. Determining variations in tropospheric temperature is also very complex.

Numbers of research groups have been working on that task. Work done, since the paper you referenced was published, have confirmed that warming in the troposphere is following similar upwards trends as do the surface temperatures.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm

This web site provides more information. The description is complex, and you will probably reject it. But numbers of research groups verify the warming.

Tony,

When I see a reference to SkS I give a gentle shudder, because it is such a defensive bastion of AGW belief.

You say to Leo that warming has been 'confirmed' and direct him to the SkS website. Your link provides a good account of the techniques used in satellite measurement, but the 'confirming' you talk about has to be based on this extract:

'a reasonable estimate at this point is that warming lies somewhere between the mid estimate of UAH/RSS and the figures that would be produced by V&G & Zou if Stratospheric cool biasing were removed. This suggests a long term trend of around 0.15 to 0.18 °C/decade for the lower Troposphere, much in line with the surface trends. And similar or higher for the mid-Troposphere based on the fact that Fu et al is looking at the entire Troposphere and V&G are showing higher Tropospheric than surface warming through the mid and tropical latitudes.

So these various analyses clearly show that the Troposphere IS warming, as determined from multiple sources.'

I don't know what you or Leo would think of this 'confirmation'. What we are given is a claimed 'reasonable estimate' somewhere between someone's mid point and someone else's results if only they had done something else instead, and bearing in mind that they were looking at a wider area. Then SkS says, triumphantly, 'these various analyses clearly show that the Troposphere IS warming, as determined from multiple sources'. Crikey!

As I've said many times, far too many papers (on both sides of this debate) are spoken of as though they 'confirm', or 'debunk', or 'prove', when all of them are best seen as 'suggestive'. What we have at the moment does not support the IPCC view that warming has occurred in the troposphere. It may have, but the evidence is at best cloudy, and unimpressive.

Don,
Are your feet close to the 1kW radiator inhabiting your 30x30m space?

So you like SkS (ha ha). All research scientists are skeptics – they query new conclusions, repeat similar investigations, read other papers – all potentially leading to new understanding.

Now, playing with semantics - beliefs may be associated with football teams, religion and numerous other matters. Beliefs are generally formed through sub-conscious processes. Science understanding is a matter of rational thought. The SkS deals with the output from rational thinking – not beliefs. Excellent in debunking some 176 myths (beliefs), each linking to authoritative sources.

Comments about “confirm”. Most scientific papers propose a paradigm or new understanding in opening paragraphs. The paper then outlines its research, particularly giving in depth detail on data acquisition and analysis. Paper’s conclusion then generally confirms that the opening proposition is adequately addressed.

You might have noticed a short post from, I believe, the most knowledgeable contributor to this discussion – nominating two sites to gain deeper understanding of the IPCC process for managing uncertainty.

This excursion into things tropospheric is not appropriate in this forum (not a belief - my excursion into rational thought). While the troposphere is very important for atmospheric heat and water vapour transport, jet streams (tight and lazy), and much more, debating it here does very little to resolve agreement or disagreement on the basic tenants of global warming. It would send your followers to sleep. Are your views constrained by your readership?

It is far better, in my rational opinion, to debate the science starting with Svante Arrhenius’s research in 1896. Then progress to NASA’s records showing about 1 watt per square metre warming. If each of these is accepted, then progress through any of numerous climate science disciplines. I am not sure that you accepted the 1896 research.

The environment is complex, not at all like a laboratory where experimental conditions can be precisely established. Different groups with different models come up with different answers for, say, climate sensitivity. But, the close agreement over many models attests to the secure foundations of climate science.

Tony,

You didn't deal with the issue at all!

As to SkS 'debunking myths' you might care to go to Lubos Motl's website and see what he thinks of the debunking (he is a physicist).

Why quote Lubos Motl? OK, he is a physicist ( or was prior to departure, possibly forced, from Harvard). In the great arena of physics research, his research was a universe away from climate research. His was burried in highly complex mathematical models of the structure of matter. He was:

Not trying to understand unprecedented floods that have, are, and will continue to take lives, destroy infrastructure and more.

Not trying to understand soul destroying droughts in impoverished countries.

Not trying to understand cyclones and storms like Sandy in the US and recent highly destructive storms that ravished Bangladesh.

Not trying to understand rapidly diminishing glaciers in South America that will leave numerous small villages and towns without water that came from summer melts.

Not trying to understand heat waves that are taking more and more lives before death was due.

Not trying to understand what ocean acidification will do to fish stocks.

Not trying to predict what will happen as temperature regimes move faster than ecological biomes are capable of.

Not trying to understand the worlds carbon cycle and how we are trashing it.

Those who try to denigrate climate scientists without debating the science, and those who are apologists for the fossil fuel industry, should, in the future, be charged with crimes against the earth, our home, our children's hothouse.

P.S. Don, I think I did get it.

But, given the horrific direction we are taking,
playing word games
is identical
in all dimensions
to
Nero and his Fiddle

Why quote Lubos Motl? Because he went through each of the SkS 'myths' and provided a counter view. That's why. Do you think he got some of them wrong? Which ones?

You persist , it seems to me, in seeing things from only one perspective, and you lard your writing with adjectives. It's all so much more complicated that you suggest, at least in my opinion. I came across the term 'doomer depression' this morning. Don't allow yourself to suffer it. :)

Tony153 your posts in praise of group think say nothing except tell us you want to keep the wheels on the gravy train a little longer.

Do you have a seat on the thing, your posts tend to say you do, or are just you easily hoodwinked by those who do.

Hi Don,
Thanks for introducing me to Mr Motl. Interesting.

Lets look at a couple of myths from SkS.

Myth 1: Climate has changed before (and therefore humans not to blame)

SkS: Outlines relationships between past changes and CO2 concentration, with many links to supporting research. Makes the point that the unique feature today is the speed of change, combined with the current levels of CO2 and the increasing rate of production of CO2.

Motl: just states there climate sensitivity to CO2 is small and inconsequential. No supporting references

Myth 2: (Global warming is caused by variations in output from) The Sun

SkS provides 11 pages of argument, text, graphs and other material, with about 30 linked references to other papers. Summary: solar activity has been waning recently – sunspots fewer. If the sun were the cause, our world temperatures would be falling. SkS also addresses indirect energy input to the earth – cosmic rays, gravitational and more.

Motl provides a paragraph of thought with no references to supporting material. Also criticises SkS for not including cosmic rays and other minor sources of energy. Without support, his views are groundless. His views are purely views, or beliefs (see earlier comments on beliefs)

Myth 5: It’s cooling

SkS a number of pages of text and diagrams, plus links to supporting research. Of course the world is warming

Motl shows complete lack of understanding of climate change, in this case very similar to Andrew Bolt’s view of the world. Climate Change or Global Warming is about temperature trends that sit below daily, weekly, yearly, Pacific Decadal, El Nino and La Nina changes in temperature. It is measured in averages, generally over 10 years. Those who quote 1998, a well acknowledged very hot year, as a data item that disproves Global Warming, do not understand Global Warming.

A quick scan of other myth rebuttals by Motl showed no references to supporting material. His comments are his beliefs.

I will admit, though, that knowing how to source reliable information on the Internet is difficult for many.

Yes, it is often hard to get reliable information on the Internet.

This is what Motl says about 'cooling':

'Cook says that the previous history of the climate shows that the climate is sensitive to imbalances. Indeed, it is and it has always been. And he says that the past history provides evidence for sensitivity to CO2. Well, it virtually doesn't. CO2, much like other effects, adds imbalances and pushes the temperature around. But there exists no way to disentangle CO2 from many other effects or argue that it has become the most important driver. So the climate continues to change in the same way as it did in the past, by the typical changes per year, decade, and century, and Cook has offered no evidence whatsoever that something has changed about the very fact that the climate is changing.'

Is there something in that summary that you can see is obviously wrong? If I read the SkS entry it makes assertions that I can't find support for in the literature. For example, there is a reference to 'rapid climate change', and a statement that things are happening more rapidly than in the past. What is the support for such a claim? If you follow the link you find that a (probable) extinction was (probably) caused by an example of rapid climate change that occurred 'in a geological instant (less than 3 million years...'

Whee! I think that SkS is dishonest in the way that it argues, and its title is similarly dishonest. If I can suggest it gently, it would help if you read more widely. Try Judith Curry, Climate Audit and Jo Nova. They are all very good at science, and in my judgment, never dishonest.

Don, a parable. You walk into a surgery to consult a new family Doctor. You sit down. The Dr says: "your left kidney is failing. I can arrange a dialysis session for you this afternoon". How do you respond? You might say "don't you need to give me a general medical check first, and read these records from my old Doctor?" Can the Doctor do anything to you without evidence of its need? You might say "yes". I would say "no".

Research science is all about Proposition, Evidence, Analysis, Conclusion. Whether Motl's comments are right or wrong, they are useless without evidence and analysis that proves his assertions. It appears that your understanding of the scientific process is very limited. It does, though, suit a lazy form of argument.

SkS identifies events in the past happening as fast as todays rapid rise: "In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments". Such volcanoes definitely geologic instants. However, CO2 increases driving ice age retreats much much slower that todays rapid rise.

Judith Curry's papers in the 3%. Her views outweighed by the 97%. Like Motl, your comment on honesty is without evidence, and somewhat sad.

If you have some spare time, you could review the science and other matters on my web site: my-info.co

Oh Dear, a lot more wasted argument on climate change.
When are you all going to realise that it does not matter whether the
climate is getting warmer or it is not ?

There is not enough fossil fuels available at an economic cost to burn !
Forget all this arguing about how to stop something that will not
happen and put your effort into whatever our new energy regime is going to be.