I do not understand Mr Bolt.
Editorials such as this do nothing to address the issue only to cause confusion and confrontation.
Do we need scientific results and projections to confirm how much the seas are rising or what the temperature will be in 2080?
One only has to go out the door to see the profound changes in our immediate environment.
We only need to understand how the destructive practices that are dissolving our natural habitats along with its unique biodiversity, never to be replaced.
We only need to realise how our continued addiction to dangerous consumption patterns are indeed literally eating the world.

Whilst denialist continue to flagellate the proponents, inaction remains unabated.
All this deferral moves us closer to the point of no return.

Peiser concluded:

"Finally, those commentators who maintain that there no longer any serious doubt among professionals about the science of climate change, I leave you with the recent survey conducted by the U.S. National Registry of Environmental Professionals (http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm). It makes interesting reading and seems to confirm a number of other surveys. Not that this would matter, one way or another, for the difficult choices we have to make in selecting the most cost-effective climate policy options."

BBgun first says:

"Bolt’s claim, which is, by the way, correct: the record for the period 1978 – 1999 does show a sea level rise of .07 mm per year."

Now he says:

"The source I linked and quoted above says that the .07 mm figure is correct"

If Bolt correctly quotes something that says 1+1=3, does that make Bolt correct?

The statement of 0.07 mm/year is incorrect. Stating 0.07+/-2.6 mm/year, for example, MIGHT be correct if such an error bound has been determined in the measurement process. However, stating 0.07mm/year in a scientific document implictly means 0.07+/-0.005 mm/year unless bounds are explicitly stated. The document's statement means 0.07+/-0.005 mm/year. This is not correct. It cannot correctly follow from the measurements they made and this is not the only fallacy as John Hunter pointed out. You can say it's meaningless if you want to, but a meaningless statement is neither correct nor incorrect. It's just meaningless.

And BTW, I'm not trying to prove Bolt wrong, I'm just showing that there was no justification for saying he is correct.

Graham Y outed, for those that didnt know. Fantastic.Lib from head to toe.

According to M. Kerjman,
“All facets of a presentation constituting this highly informative doco [An Inconvenient Truth] fit perfectly a professional politician's statesman expertise gained at the top positions while working for the superpower the USA are.

However, picturesquely depicting the real threats to accustomed natural environment on this planet seemed subtly avoiding a question of the gradual ageing of the Earth itself.”

Yeah, AGEING Earth reqiores definitely a modern approach of tackling a very task of human surviving particularly.

Peiser:

"(Oreskes) main claims are not backed up by the sample of abstracts she used."

This is plainly not true as he only refers to the following claim and makes no mention of the claim that Gore (and consequently Bolt) refers to:

"Her claim that "75% [of all papers] fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view" is certainly wrong as the majority of abstracts do not even deal with anthropogenic global warming."

i.e. he says absolutely nothing about the other Oreskes' claim that Gore quoted, i.e.:

"Gore claims that a survey of 928 scientific articles on global warming showed not one disputed that man’s gasses were mostly to blame for rising global temperatures."

Peiser says absolutely nothing about THIS claim now (he just talks about other claims that Gore doesn't mention). We have been saying all along that Peiser has withdrawn his questioning of this claim. Thus Bolt is incorrect to say that Peiser has shown that this claim is wrong because Peiser no longer stands by that assertion, as his email demonstrated.

"I hope we'll hear no more claims from Lambert et al that he has disowned his study."

He has disowned the part of his study that Bolt relied on. The incorrectness of Bolt's assertions is what this thread is about.

Peiser:

"Finally, those commentators who maintain that there no longer any serious doubt among professionals about the science of climate change, I leave you with the recent survey.. http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm "

What's Peiser trying to do, proof by webpage that contradicts him? I see very little on that webpage that agrees with his position. In any case, that group has very few, if any, climate scientists. It appears mainly to consist of engineers.

I think a large part of the difficultly here is that many people don't understand what the scientific peer-review process is. I'd suggest people should google it and try to get themselves some knowledge about. (It's not a committee meeting BTW.) As I keep trying to point out, there is no debate in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.