Janama wrote: "just remember they will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science!"

OK, I then suggested looking at real climate science journals (eg.http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/) to get a decent sampling of real, active climate scientists views.

Janama then ignores this and writes "other hand you could check the website of The US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works and see their list". What a hypocrite! This obviously biased public political blog lists references that on cursory inspection are composed of:

- business people calling themselves climate consultants
- self-appointed and self-described "expert IPCC reviewers" (basically, anyone was able to make submissions)
- people self-described described as "meteorologists" who are in fact just ex TV weather presenters
- retired and dead scientists in unrelated fields
- amongst all this junk I spotted one candidate for a real climate scientist (now dead): Reid Bryson

Now back to the sampling climate scientists publishing recently in peer-reviewed climate science journals - what percentage are denying human-caused climate change? Bugger all, that's how many. Stick to the science indeed!

Further comment (221) ex Steve McIntyre's CA from an attendee to Roy Spencer's presentation 17/7.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3258#comment-277522

"The BIG point is that internal climate variability has been misidentified, heretofore. His model was matched against Forster (et Al, 2006), and improved on his results, indicating that his results are veridical.

His new insight is that ocean PDO-neg and PDO-pos effects are likely driving a more dominant natural climate effect, and his results are unlikely to be coincidental. Forster agreed.

It was an almost full house, maybe 70 (out of 100) seats filled. He says his PP presentation should be up at Roger Pielke (Sr?) web site now, he said.

(Too busy right now to check details right now - this all from memory after work - THIS was full of interest for people here.) I’ll try to fill in gaps later, and see the PPP myself to refresh my notes and memory.

There were also two interesting working elements on display here. First, the fact that he’s doing this all on Excel spreadsheets, not the multi-million dollar super-computers with teams of well-paid researchers like the modelers. Second, when someone asked if he had communicated with Bill Gray, Spencer said he had not seen Bill in ten years time, but bumped into him while registering at a conference awhile ago. Dr Gray got down on his knees and reportedly said “I love you!” “Kind of embarrassing,” said Spencer smirkingly, admitting that Gray is very passionate about observationally driven climate science. NOT what’s become of it these days.

Again, see the PPP at Pielke’s web site for Spencer’s compelling conclusions and implications for what this means for climate modeling. And again, this work opens up a lot more work to do to confirm his teasing inferences.

Spencer admitted to having engaged in the kind of “hand waving” often criticized at CA. But now there are increasing amounts of hard empirical evidence to back up such previously idle claims. Quite fascinating. Could this be a turning point in the theory versus observational debate that has characterized the field since the demise of the Hockey Stick?"

In relation to Spencer's thesis I have been looking for a reference to correspondence he had earlier with Isaac Held & Piers Forster, in connection with the yet to be published paper in Journal of Climate*. I think this will be very relevant to how this progresses.

*Note this is the earlier paper, Spencer, "Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Description", Journal of Climate; not this one, Spencer, Roy W. "Chaotic Radiative Forcing, Feedback Stripes, and the Overestimation of Climate Sensitivity", J Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (submitted June 25, 2008).

Goggling, I found it in a comment I made in response to a comment (Apr 5, 12.06 pm) by Chris Close, in Tamino's blog, on feedback.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/feedback/

My comment is taken from a guest post by Spenser on Roger Pielke Sr's blog, Dec 30, 2007)

http://climatesci.org/2007/12/30/update-cause-versus-effect-in-feedback-diagnosis-by-roy-w-spencer-12302007/

Part of the quote from Spenser:

“On August 8, 2007, I posted here a guest blog entry on the possibility that our observational estimates of feedbacks might be biased in the positive direction. Danny Braswell and I built a simple time-dependent energy balance model to demonstrate the effect and its possible magnitude, and submitted a paper to the Journal of Climate for publication.

The two reviewers of the manuscript (rather uncharacteristically) signed their names to their reviews. To my surprise, both of them (Isaac Held and Piers Forster) agreed that we had raised a legitimate issue. While both reviewers suggested changes in the (conditionally accepted) manuscript, they even took the time to develop their own simple models to demonstrate the effect to themselves.

Of special note is the intellectual honesty shown by Piers Forster. Our paper directly challenges an assumption made by Forster in his 2005 J. Climate paper, which provided a nice theoretical treatment of feedback diagnosis from observational data. Forster admitted in his review that they had erred in this part of their analysis, and encouraged us to get the paper published so that others could be made aware of the issue, too".

A link to the Forster (& Gregory) paper is here: -

http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~earpmf/papers/ForsterandGregory2006.pdf

GLarsen, you are spamming on about Roy Spencer, but I hate to point out this following about your singular climate denier hero - he is:

1. part of an organisation that claims it is "bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

2. linked to organisations that have received millions of dollars of private funding by ExxonMobil, and also organisations that " make the claim that 'anti-smoking advocates' are exaggerating the health threats of smoking"

3. His research about cooling in certain parts of the atmosphere was shown to be wrong by independent science teams. He now admits it was wrong but seemingly is too proud to retract the theories that he based on it.

Source: http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397

So why don't you take up the challenge and look at current research in real climate science journals such as

http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/

and count how many authors deny human-caused climate change. I bet you can't find one amongst the hundreds there.

Sams, you are a laugh a minute with your Algorian science. Keep it up but somehow from what i've seen climate doesn't seem to be obeying your instructions. With Algorian science there is this premise that nature has been designed as if it were a printed circuit board forcing electrons to follow a certain path, and the human influence is like unsoldering and replacing a component. It is a ridiculous disconnected notion and just a new age wrapper for the revival of an insecure pre-Copernican mindset.

Al-AGW always presents as a politico/religious belief. I've mentioned my efforts to post on the UNreal climate site, but in Australia i have ventured, dare i say into these deltoid and JQuiggin blogs and found this closed, frozen-in-place mindset. What a dim captive lot of rote learners in wrong order we find.

Quiggin for example develops what he calls his ‘litterbug’ argument using the per capita CO2 emissions method to promote the idea that Australians are practically the worst in the world. What i simply tried to say (that met with his complete censoring) was that to use the per capita CO2 method removes the geographic reality. i.e. It sees people removed not just from their biology but from their environment. I view this disconnect as a very serious issue because for starters Australia with its extensive land and ocean environment would have higher energy needs but our emissions would essentially be neutral too.

A natural consequence of this disconnect is seen with our prime minister who from all reports is looking at 300,000 immigrants per year. This may lower per capita emissions but have diabolical effects on the environment. e.g. There is the increased demand for finite water resources in the Murray/Darling basin plus increased demand for food, infrastructure and energy.

Sams
Science isn’t settled by a count of heads. It’s settled by scientists putting forward falsifiable hypothesises (e.g. climate sensitivity = 3C +/- 1.50C) & these hypothesises being able to withstand the test of time. It only takes one researcher to come up with a new insight to overturn a theory. Look at the history of science.
Your points 1 & 2 above are ad hominem & I will not comment. Your point 3 has nothing whatsoever to do with the research I linked; it refers to bias corrections in 2005 that were made on the UAH MSU satellites which measure temperature. See Update 7 Aug 2005 in link.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.03Jan2008

I’m baffled by your link to SpringerLink. This is not a climate science journal as you say but a link to journal papers on many topics, including papers by, surprise, surprise, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen & I daresay many other AGW sceptics.