The core logic of science is simple: testing ideas with evidence. It is also worth noting that science is not static. It is constantly evolving.

Scientific conclusions are always revisable if warranted by the evidence. Scientific investigations are often ongoing, raising new questions even as old ones are answered.

As the above quite makes quite clear, the “shifting goalposts” argument misunderstands how science works.

The knowledge that is built by science is always open to question and revision. No scientific idea is ever once-and-for-all "proved." Why not? Well, science is constantly seeking new evidence, which could reveal problems with our current understandings. Ideas that we fully accept today may be rejected or modified in light of new evidence discovered tomorrow.

Actually Don, I have heard stories from multiple climate scientists who got sometimes hundreds of FOI requests from many people who appear to have just a casual interest. Indeed, That is not the same as you asking a scientist for a copy of his code and data.

It takes up a lot of time. What you are describing is a fantasy, a strawman if you will.

Even alluding to 'alleged' sexual misconduct is engaging in a smear, unless it directly relevant to climate science, which it isn't. Him also discussing his life's work is to help the planet as being so strong as to be like his religion, well that isn't as relevant as Rhian would like to believe either.

I know you guys really want to paint climate science as a 'religion' or a 'cult', ironically to smear those whose accept the current scientific consensus on climate change, but one mans view does not a religion make.

Rhian, well said.

One of the major dangers in the whole debate is that many of those most vocal about man made climate change are not scientists either, they are often those with strong political objections to the western capitalist model (and visa versa).

The science is muddied by the hopes people have hung off it to further their own mostly unrelated agenda's.

I certainly lack confidence in either side of the debate to deal with the issues honestly.

R0bert

Don. Excellent article which once again identifies the shifting of argument/focus from the actual conclusions of the Soon et al paper to matters completely irrelevant to the data. As you clearly state in your title "when nothing left with which to argue".........Go for the distraction and smear.
Asking these people to act with integrity is, crudely speaking, 'pissin in the wind', but worthy of trying nonetheless.
How delighted they must be that they have hobbled R Pielke jnr. in this matter. This is not science, it's rubbish.

Climate change sceptics need to read how the fossil fuel industry has distorted environment protection laws and administration of those laws in the USA. A book by law professor Mary Wood, Nature's Trust, would be a good place to start.
One extract states that at the Bali Conference;
Only one party could claim resounding success: the negotiator for the Bush administration who had blocked any agreement that would define clear carbon cuts.
The truth of what happened in the halls of EPA during the Bali Conference would come to light seven months later. On December 5, 2007, just two days after the Bali conference began, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson had presented a proposed endangerment finding to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The twenty-eight-page document concluded that human carbon emissions, in fact, caused global warming. It detailed the enormous risk of harm from climate change, including exacerbated storms, Hooding, heat waves, wildfires, drought, eco- system damage, temperature extremes, rising sea levels, and a host of other damages. Most importantly, the document made a clear endangerment finding under the CAA. That one finding, had it been issued, would have triggered CAA regulations Jason Burnett, Associate Deputy Administrator of EPA, had helped develop the endangerment finding in response to the Massachusetts v. EPA litigation.

At 2.10PM on December 5, he had sent the formal proposed endangerment finding a an e-mail attachment to the White House. According to an investigative report by the Philadelphia Inquirer, White House aides knew what the EPA finding would be. They also realized that if they opened the attachment, it would become public, record. So, they never opened it. Instead, the White House called Administrator Johnson and instructed him to not issue the finding. Johnson complied with the request.

I suppose one touchstone about climate change is whether or not there has been a 'pause' in world temperature increase. Has there ? Hasn't there ? I'm fairly open to evidence one way the other.

Has there been a 'pause' now for, what, eighteen years ? Will global warming come back with a vengeance ? or will the 'pause' keep pausing ?

Just curious. Have harvests of spring and summer crops moved back a week or two, or a month, consistently, around the world ? Do farmers plant their crops earlier than a century ago, and not just because of improvements in strains ? Has tree growth moved up mountains ? Are mountain species retreating ? Have glaciers retreated at a hundred vertical feet for every degree rise in temperature, or more, or less ?

One day a couple of weeks ago, the BoM predicted a daily temperature for Adelaide that was about five degrees out. But I'm glad they can predict spot-on a hundred years from now :)

Joe