That's unfair Don. If you said from the get-go that the lead author was Lewandowsky we'd have known that you were writing about something that's utter rubbish. This the man who found 10 (out of 1147) people who doubted the moon landing, turned that into 'proof' that most 'deniers' doubt the moon landing (even though most of the 10 weren't deniers) and then parlayed that into a career.

Lewandowsky is proof that the peer-review system, at least as regards climate science, is spectacularly flawed, and his being feted by the consensus community shows the depths to which that community will descend to 'win'.

The entire issue is now so politicised that sensible discussion is no longer an option. We all know that the 97% consensus is a fiction, or is at least a fiction in regards to the way its used. That is, quite probably 97% of climate scientists think that change is occurring and is partially caused by man, but there is no evidence that 97% agree that its dangerous as Obama claimed.
But now its a catch-all. Disagree with anything from the consensus and you're accused of going against the 97%.

When I'm told I am a denier, I often ask what they suppose I deny. Silence is the usual response.

But this creates problems going ahead. The climate community and their political allies misunderstand the skeptic case and thus sensible discussion and decision-making becomes impossible. Assert that the case hasn't been made that we need to do anything about purported sea level rises just yet, and you're informed that its been proven that CO2 traps heat, the 97% is invoked and therefore you're wrong. There's nowhere to go after that.

Ultimately the belief in CC is neither here nor there if it can't be translated into action. And since action means economic sacrifice, and people, while mouthing the platitudes aren't prepared to sacrifice to Gaia, the whole issue will become an historic curiosity.

Don if you don't mind I want to open this right up.

1. In the Olden Times when I went to uni in the 1960s... I don't know that academics ever had to publish all this stuff. They just talked and gave lectures, marked exams and generally provoked us to think. This publishing frenzy is a monster out of control.

2. Dare I mention the F-word? I used to have many arguments with one feminist and it was a while before I woke up to her tricks. She was famous for energetically promoting herself. Any time she spoke to the press, she got them to call her "a leading feminist". There seem to be thousands of these! She was published by various outfits, nearly always cosy nests of other feminists who published other feminists' work. Maybe that's a familiar pattern? You get together with a few scaly mates and feather your own nest, then pass it off as academic writing and get promoted. Of course, if you meet the conventional wisdom you get research money and hey presto! you're respectable and respected. By some, anyway.

I don't know much about climate change but it was amusing to note that the guy on Q and A who was most vociferously opposed to it had been the owner of a coal mine. Self-interest always trumps the common-wealth.

3. There are well-known non-journals wherein, if you just pay the editor a few hundred, your piece will appear. Something came up about this recently. One notorious senior academic was touting one such journal to us but it soon became known what type of garbage it was.

Anyway, a good piece but needs to be spread around an academic audience, I think.

Dear Don,

You claim:

"but the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming".

While they talk of a slowing of warming they do not mention the word 'hiatus' once. A slowing is not a pausing, it is still continuing to warm.

Why claim this when it patently is not true?

"A slowing is not a pausing, it is still continuing to warm."

A paper from the Met entitled "The recent pause in
global warming (1)".

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

"This paper is the first in a series of three reports from the Met Office Hadley Centre that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions. What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period; what are the potential drivers of the current pause; and how does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate? "

There's also a paper "The recent pause in global warming (2)"..
" Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming"

And a third paper..."The recent pause in global surface temperature rise"

The Claytons pause. The pause you're having when you're not having a pause.

Here we go again, wasting time and effort on an argument that does
not matter whether it is true or not.

Oh, it's a 'review' (i.e. blog commentary) of a commentary in a 'social' science journal.

Eunuchs at the orgy indeed.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.