"Aitken's point is precisely that the science is not monolithic. There is a dominant group of scientists and another group who take issue with the dominant group."

And thank god for that. Science fails society when it ceases to question its own results.

However, the portrayal of sceptics and their motives is mean and tricky, and clearly intended to detract from good science for the benefit of those who profit from ignoring environmental responsibility.

As Garry Newsam wrote in the Higher Education supplement of the Australian today:

"In religion and philosophy, orthodoxy is an accepted faith or set of beliefs... In contrast, all scientists are sceptics by profession, thus in science "orthodoxy" is the accepted consensus that no one has yet found a rational argument to improve or refute. This does not mean it is the ultimate truth, but until good arguments are put forward for change, it is where a rational person puts their money.

To confuse these meanings and imply that climate science is a religion while those that question it are enlightened, rational thinkers is a deliberate abuse of language and an insult to the scientists who have worked hard to establish the present baseline of knowledge, however imperfect that might be."

We-have-been-promised-a-pig but-gotten-a-mad-cow,

That science has-all-the-answers is-a-thing taught-us-as-children ,IT-is a complete-deception ,like santa-clause.

As-children we-are unquestionably-informed-of how-great-science is [on-tv we-have the white-robed-high-priests-of-science telling us about whiter-white ][or the benefits of this or that tooth-brush or tooth-paste ,or this breakfast-cerial or this latest science-fad]

Its all part of the dumming-down process , conducted by dumbing-down education ,and-using-the-mind-numbing-media to con [neo=-con] us-all

[does science base its 'science on fact'[then how-come different interpritations based on the same facts suport such divergent theories]
or those-who-de-base it or-support-it-according-to who pays them to study it
what?.

These-same scien-trysts for-hire made aids from monkey-virus in the name of curing polio
[which one was worse

[it tells us mercury-in-fish-is-bad [but mercury-in-compulsory-child-hood-vacine is god[good][that mercury is-causing add ,and imbisility is not provable linkage]

This faux science-sellout tells-us gmo is safe , despite infertility problems being apparent to-those feeding gm corn to-their-beasts, but no-one will-pay for that-study
[indeed mon-satan-o hushes-it-up]

How far will we let these colluding sell-outs sell-out humanity [the research methodology behind the study-of-hemp [marijuana alone reveals the collusion

[ie no-studdy-allowed , and if one is permitted it-must-use-that dope as-supplied by the-one-agency-allowed to supply-it

[hemp-is-time-sensitive
its-t.h.c breaks-down
via-a three-stage-process]

[so giving old,-new or-strong or-weak pure or-adulterated is-a precondition-controlled-by the-us-drug-szar

But leave-that-aside

[we-hear science-reports-on-brain-damage [caused-by feeding 30 joints via-a-face-mask
..taped-to-the face of 7 monkies for 5 minutes
3 died from-this abuse in the 5 minutes, thatof-the-smoke-from-the 'joint-murder-machine' which-pumped-pure-concentrated-smoke-into-their-masks
[but all-had-brain-damage [go figure , try-holding-ya-breath for 5-minutes]

[But-do-tell me scien-trusts?,

did-they-get brain-damage from the-dope or the oxegen-starvation for 5 minutes?[yeah-iknow-its-a-debatable-point]

it-dosnt-even rate a response
[but media will-quote its-result [but-not the methodology]

All negative-studies on hemp use-simular flawed [scientific-?-methodoligy]

yet-its all-science

[All-sold to us as-fact

[the-latest new-zealand 'study''
didnt-even have dope-mokers in it!

[its-results are-based on pre-egsisting-conditions
[yet -his science-farce-goes-on ]

Stop this-generic-science is-good-IS-cccrappp

[which-science
[which-scientist]
which-studdy

[you-claim-all science-is-good
[i tar it-all with-the insane [same ] brush]

its so-controlled by-those seeking-the brand-of-science to decieve the-people so-as-to be-all totally-fraud

How-good the-science-that builds buildings [911] that fall-down?

[building 7 never-got-hit by a damm plane]but-media [and-science-silence lets-the dumbing-down lead-the-sheep into-armogeddon

[faith-in-faulse-gods of zion-tryst's indeed]

Michael T

If you put energy into a system, the system tries to adjust or equilibrate.
For example, a warming atmosphere contains more moisture. This moisture must precipitate out as rain or snow. The NH has a lot of land mass, the SH much less. Regionally, the Arctic is warming at a much faster rate than the Antarctic (as the Inuits living on melting permafrost will attest).

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html

I agree that we do need to look at the evidence without preconceptions (it would help if people are familiar with the science, but most are not). However, too many people have preconceptions based on ideological perspective – evidenced in the stoush between ‘humanities’ and the ‘natural sciences’, as we see between Aitken and Davies.

You may not agree with Davies, but that does not make the science wrong. Geoff Davies is alarmed because of what the science is telling him/us.

There is a vast preponderance of scientific evidence and literature that have led to countries’ concerns the world over. They are not debating the science; they are debating how to deal with the problems of global warming in a diverse econometric and political framework.

This is where Aitken could really contribute, but he can’t or he won’t – preferring to ‘stir the pot’ in the popular media and on blogspots. Aitken calls for a Royal Commission on Climate Change – this is totally myopic – we already have an ongoing world-wide commission, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Q&A, if an AGWer said that the sky was blue, I feel i'd go out and check. Is that a preconception?

This report suggests that there was less ice in the arctic in august 1922 than there was during the so called ‘record setting’ melt of 2007. Was this one in 1922 a first breath of warm CO2 passing from the lips of an early AGWer AND that AGW started much sooner than originally thought? Cripes we have 5 minutes to act. lol
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

OR

Even back to the time of Captain Cook with ...... the opening of the Northwest Passage?
The Letters of Sir Joseph Banks: A Selection, 1768-1820
http://books.google.com/books?id=_-5rQMHKLi8C&pg=PA334&dq=%22the+cold+that+has+for+centuries+past+enclosed+the+seas%22&sig=_9Iyy4d8NVxnctLuL-rwQXMJcPE#PPA334,M1
Look for letter 132.

Cripes the pollen is bursting, the critters are stirring, the buds are swelling, we live in unprecedented times. ..... the biologists are getting worried. e.g. "The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast,” Stanford University biologist Terry Root. Cripes Run for your lives! lol

Keiran
I think it’s great you have found a library on the internet … or was it ‘misinformed spin’ from a so called ‘denialist’ blog web site? No matter.

Unfortunately, you do not apply the principles of scientific enquiry (which you clearly would like to emulate with your erudite but flawed cosmic ray, solar irradiance and sun-spot musings). You continually take things out of context, either wilfully or in ignorance.

Keiran, you are demonstrating preconceived bias (that’s ok, you have not been trained in science) but just because you found an 86 year old weather report does not change the facts.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/14/3/pdf/i1520-0442-14-3-255.pdf

This is no preconception … go and check (I mean really check) all you like. Try and understand the abstract, look at the graphs and put 1922 in perspective, read the conclusion and check out the references (which are primary sources, not like your “primary sources” given to Steel).

YES Science is about OBSERVATIONS. But you have to test the bloody things. AGW won't be testable for over 50 years and statistical modelling is flawed by the adage "lies, damn-lies and statistics".

ITM anomalies exist, both cooling and warming.

The science of climate is governed strictly by Thermodynamics. One observation we can test is the disasterous effect of staggering increases in thermodynamic wastes(solids,liquis&gases) emitted by humans. This is roughly 6.5billion times the average-PCF(per capita carbon-footprint). To just register gases is a huge flaw in the IPCC modelling & ruins the IPCC 'cut-CO2-for-insurance' cries as they should be saying the same thing about landfill and sewage.

Now the best way to deal with 6.5 billion carbon-footprints is to legislate people have no more than one child per woman. At least this ensures all thermodynamic wastes(TW) are capped at today's levels. That is the proper insurance for sustainable climate on ALL available observations.

The reason why this is not done is best summed up by an American comment about SUV's: "You'll have to prise my dead hands off the steering wheel before I will give it up". This is nojoke. And I suggest that women and their opportunity beaus are taking the exact same attitude to having children. Perhaps it goes like this: Women-"You will never have sex again if you think you can stop me having kids" and Men-"You will have to prise her dead hands off my c##k before I will give up sex. So don't mess with me, she can have all the kids she wants and I will kill for that right".

Continued..