I love your certainty A is A. Isn't there room for just a little doubt? We're playing with the future of the planet and there is so much complexity, yet people like you know it all.

That’s a bit rich, mtb, accusing me, and other critics of climate alarmists, of false certainty. We are constantly being regaled with disasters du jour from the alarmist lobby with breathtaking "certainly". How’s this one, from The Guardian, and republished in last weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1405647,00.html

"Scientists warn growing acidity of oceans will kill reefs

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Friday February 4, 2005
The Guardian

Scientists have given warning of a newly discovered threat to mankind, which will wipe out coral and many species of fish and other sea life. …Extra carbon dioxide in the air, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is not only spurring climate change, but is making the oceans more acidic - endangering the marine life that helps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.…The oceans have previously recorded an 8.2 pH reading, but this has now dropped to 8.1 and is continuing to fall."

I will leave it to you to spot the glaringly obvious contradiction in this latest offering in the propaganda war.

This started as a quick comment on a couple of matters that have come up in the now quite numerous articles about Global Warming. It has expanded. I make no apology for that.

First, if anyone is unsure of my credentials and background and so on go to my website, it is quite extensive and explicit. Only an ignorant person would assert I am not a scientist. Consideration of my background would surely show that I have considerable experience in assessing science and scientific research. I have never claimed to be an expert on meteorology but I do have a concern for the natural environment and the future and an interest in the way decisions are made and in behaviour generally. That is background and not in itself a justification for the validity of any of my views.

Second, a set of people, particularly snowman, inhabit every forum concerning global warming. Their assertions are quite clear: the science supporting the proposition that global climate change has occurred is seriously flawed, the scientists supporting the proposition are doing so only through consensus, criticisms of sceptical views are playing the person not the issue and so on. And there is the argument that the statements of certain people are not worth considering because those people are biased. The last point is used by most protagonists.

Do these people believe that simply by maintaining and repeating these assertions that eventually the facts will change? One of the recent articles dealt with the book published by William Kininmonth. John Zillman, former Director of the Bureau of Meteorology, said the following.

"If Bill Kininmonth's purpose in emphasizing the limitations of the global climate models was to caution against taking their output too much on faith, and to focus attention on the need to improve them, I think he is playing a useful role and one which I fully support.

"But I believe that Bill goes much too far and, for whatever reason, misinterprets and/or misrepresents some important aspects of the science of climate change that are now pretty well understood. At least thirty times in the book he asserts, albeit in slightly different language in each place, that what he refers to as the one-dimensional IPCC construct of radiative forcing of climate change is fundamentally flawed. He makes much of the well known three-dimensional structure of atmospheric processes and energy flows in the climate system and implies that these have been overlooked by the IPCC. I offer two specific comments on Bill's characterisation of the IPCC:

"The IPCC is not, as Bill implies and many appear to have been lead to believe, some ideologically committed group of scientists with a particular position or perspective on the science which they seek to promote. Rather it is a highly transparent process, supervised by governments, which enables the contemporary state of knowledge of climate change as it emerges from the peer-reviewed published literature to be summarised and assessed by a representative group of the internationally acknowledged experts in the field with their summary assessment subject to one of the most exhaustive processes of peer review and revision that I believe has ever occurred in the international scientific community...

"Bill is wrong to assert or imply that the model results on which the IPCC assessments are based don't take account of all the various three dimensional energy transfer processes that he argues are so important. He is seriously misleading in his belittling as 'one-dimensional' of the IPCC's use of globally averaged versions of the energy budget..."

Yet people can laud Kinninmonth's book without noting any of these comments by Zillman, a person who is both a distinguished research leader and participant in this debate and one of the more careful and generous persons in that debate. Such behaviour is typical of the skeptics.

It is this kind of selective reporting that we see in the commentary by many others, the supporters of Fred Singer and of Lomborg. It is common that analyses of Lomborg’s statements and Singer’s assertions are not consulted. I referred to analyses by John Quiggin but I don’t note than the supporters of Lomborg have bothered to consider that.

I am not unaware of mistakes and bad judgments in science: it is a human activity. But are we really and truly expected to believe that several thousand scientists, several score scientific institutions, numerous countries, many companies (including insurance companies who are having to pay out much more in claims for the damage of extreme weather conditions which is one of the events forecast for climate change as long ago as the early 70s) are all wrong? Really?! Are we expected to reject Darwinian evolution because the majority of scientists consider it represents the most complete explanation of the diversity of life? Are we to reject the proposition that major geologic events are caused by the movement of tectonic plates because scientists consider this to be the best explanation?

Compare these issues and conclusions with those that underlie rational economics, neoliberal propositions concerning the economics of health care, education, social welfare, education, crime etc etc. Yes, this whole debate has an element, so far as I am concerned, of ideology. And yes, when the neoliberal ideologues like those of the Centre for Independent Studies bring out the Lomborgs of this world and the Competitive Enterprise Institute lobbies to have Bush reverse his undertakings on CO2 emissions and so on and so on, then we need to consider very carefully just what the evidence is on which these claims are based and what the motives of these people are.

Science is not some kind of cozy club in which people are into it for their own personal rewards to a significantly greater extent than in any other area of human activity including the arts and business. Simply quoting Thomas Kuhn doesn't get us very far. And yes of course scientists have their centres and their advocates.

The arguments which those who advance the proposition that rapid global climate change (carefully think about every one of those words) is occurring are based on huge amounts of data and huge amounts of analyses. They do not commence with some ideological position any more than did those who warned of ozone depletion or that the plagues was cause by bacteria carried by fleas who lived on rats.

That in a supposedly civilized world propositions are being advanced that are supported by next to no facts or observations of limited applicability, based on nothing more than an ideology no more robust than that which supported the national socialist and racist motives of the middle of the last century is an outrage. Millions die and will continue to die as long as this nonsense, of the kind advanced by snowman and his ilk, continues. And yes, this is an argument based on ideology. It happens also to be supported by the weight of evidence and not by self interest, other than the hope that those of seven generations on might inherit a life to be lived.

Des,

I heve never questioned whether you are a scientist or not. To me that is entirely irrelevant. Being a scientists doesn't make your immune from errors of logic, from distortion and from deriving inconsistent and unsupportable ideas from observational data acquired by either yourself or others.

Yes, I have recently looked at several posting on climate change and I keep finding the same assertions and assumptions either from the writers of the articles or from the posters to the forum. Surely you are not saying that their statements should not be challenged?

I note some distortion in your assumptions about me in your accusations about "a set of people" but I am most disturbed by your claim that I, like most protagonists, have an attitude that " certain people are not worth considering because those people are biased." I find it difficult to see how you can possibly draw that conclusion when I have simply asked people to explain certain observations and criticised them for failing to present evidence to support their assertions.

I see that you quote of John Zillman's remarks rather than make statements of your own and this is the kind of thing about which I have commented - accepting the word of some other person (often someone regarded as "an expert") at face value and never examining the facts and raw data for oneself.

By the way Zillman's comments are incorrect. He says "The IPCC is not, as Bill implies and many appear to have been lead to believe, some ideologically committed group of scientists with a particular position or perspective on the science which they seek to promote." but this is clearly refuted by the recent comments of Michael Mann and IPCC chairman Dr. Pachauri ?

At a recent conference Michael Mann was introduced as a IPCC Lead Author and then claimed that extreme weather events were increasing, a fact that was contradicted by recognised IPCC contributor Chris Landsea. Mann later claimed that he was speaking in a private capacity but by then it was too late, the belief was he was presenting the IPCC's view. (see Landsea's letter of resignation at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html)

Chairman Dr Pachauri has recently made several comments to the effect that anthropogenic climate change is real and in support of the Kyoto Agreement.

So as much as Zillman might think otherwise, both Mann and Pachauri clearly hold certain positions and perspectives on the science which they seek to promote.

Des, you and others may not be aware that John Zillam was a contributor and author to the IPCC document. It is no surprise at all to find him asserting that everything that the IPCC does and the accuracy of their models is above board.

I have had personal communication with Zillman and his belief in carbon dioxide as the cause of warming is based on his perception that as far as he can see, there is no other suspect for the crime. Sorry but that is not proof.

You seem entirely unaware that Lomborg is of the opinion that carbon dioxide probably causes warming. True! His writing merely reflects a coldy rational assessment that more could be achieved with the money spent on other areas of human suffering especially in the third world.

I see that you resort to the old consensus argument again - "But are we really and truly expected to believe that several thousand scientists, several score scientific institutions, numerous countries, many companies (including insurance companies who are having to pay out much more in claims for the damage of extreme weather conditions which is one of the events forecast for climate change as long ago as the early 70s) are all wrong? Really?!"

I have responded to the notion of "consensus" in at least one forum so please search for my remarks to save repeating them here.

Are you entirely unaware that a similar consensus was held about cholera being caused by a "miasma" and that the stubborn refusal to accept the more sceptical view that it was water-borne caused the loss of millions of lives? This is not the only instance of consensus retarding science but it is probably the simplest.

Sure your examples of consensus about Darwinian evolution and tectonic plates are accepted but both have reasonable evidence to support their hypothesis. By the way, the person who first proposed the notion of tectonic plates was ridiculed by the scientific establishment for many year. (So much for a good example to support your argument !)

And don't trot out the insurance companies as if they are some paragon of virtue. They are in business to make money. That's it. Plain and simple. If they can encourage people to spend more money on their premiums than they need to do you really think they would say "No, we have enough already." ? Of course they will milk the notion of global warming for all it is worth! Do they care about whether they may be right or wrong with their statements? Give me a break! How naive are you?

Thanks for your confirmation that the debate about global warming is based on ideology. I did suspect as much and yes, we "need to consider very carefully just what the evidence is on which these claims are based and what the motives of these people are". More to the point we need to consider why you and others like you either won't look at the evidence provided by raw data or refuse to acknowledge what it is telling us.

The raw data says that temperatures have not exceeded their 1998 levels and says that since that time carbon dioxide levels have increased by 11 ppm, an amount equivalent to about 20% of the total between 1960 and 1998 inclusive. I know what this tells me, but what does it tell you? Or is your answer wrapped in motives and ideology ?

You say "The arguments which those who advance the proposition that rapid global climate change (carefully think about every one of those words) is occurring are based on huge amounts of data and huge amounts of analyses." so I ask you, please provide information so that I can access the raw data for myself and please provide explanation as to why these events cannot be caused by natural events.

These requests should be pretty simple if there are huge amounts of data and analyses.

"That in a supposedly civilized world propositions are being advanced that are supported by next to no facts or observations of limited applicability" Sorry.. what? I have produced the evidence and provided links to my data sources - which is a darn sight more than you have done in either your article or this forum - so how do you support this contention that I have no facts or that my observations are of limited applicability?

You conclude that your assertion "happens also to be supported by the weight of evidence and not by self interest, other than the hope that those of seven generations on might inherit a life to be lived. " That's a wonderful notion but now please provide all the raw data evidence that supports your claims.

If you cannot provide evidence to support your assertions then they should be rejected out of hand. Since any scientist worthy of the name will provide such evidence then it seems that your claim to being a scientist is also under a cloud.

My strong suggestion (but not demand) to you is to look at the raw data for yourself and to put aside your ideology while you consider what the evidence is telling you. Stretch your thinking beyond the "consensus" to question whether natural events may be the cause of what you see and whether the assumptions underlying the consensus viewpoint to which you subscribe are truly supported by the evidence.

If you are honest, I think you may become enlightened.

Snowman,

It is my understanding that carbon dioxide levels have been gradually increasing since the 1890’s, primarily because of man’s activities. Since that time a lot of carbon dioxide has been pumped into the atmosphere (together with many other contaminants).

There is now belief that a considerable amount of carbon dioxide has been absorbed by the oceans, but unfortunately forming carbonic acid in the process, and increasing the acidity of the oceans.

If the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not forming a greenhouse gas, do we have to be concerned for the oceans?

Snowman - Des Griffin's scientific credentials were scorned by the usual suspect in his posting above on 9 February when he said "Des Griffin and Gareth Walton aren't scientists either". Des has every right to draw attention to his credentials when they are so blatantly misrepresented by others.

Des, you say, "Simply quoting Thomas Kuhn [on scientific consensus] does not get us very far". I agree that it does not add value to a discussion about scientific evidence in the global warming debate. However, my ironic comment was originally directed to Snowman, "perhaps you have been reading too much Thomas Kuhn" on 7 Feb, because he appears to have so little understanding about the way science progresses understanding through replicable experimentation, peer review, and ageement (or consensus) on evidence and facts etc.

Perhaps Snowman sees himself as the lonely dissenter, like Copernicus, who will one day triumph over the scientific consensus he rails against. What he should also understand is that most lonely dissenters have simply missed the point, and wander off into the dark alleys of history never to be heard of again. I also suggested he read Don Quixote.

I should add that Jennifer Marohasy, in a later forum, also queried my recommendation to Snowman about Kuhn. I don't think she has read it either, judging from her questions. Still, it was published first in 1962, and the world has moved on, so be assured, I will try not mention it again.