This is all going to look rather daft if the coming summer is a scorcher. True this southern winter has been cold but remember it was only in March that Adelaide had 13 straight days over 100F. GW deniers are spoilt for choice on variations to the theme 'CO2 is not the problem'. If not sunspots it could be cosmic rays or planetary wobbles. Compounding the problem is the happy news that China is running out of coal. Emissions driving warming might slow or perhaps the melting ice and tundra will take over where humans left off. These intricacies need real scientists to decipher, not backyarders.

Good article, Mark. The whole greenhouse debate would benefit from a lot more focus on the actual empirical evidence, as you have assembled it here.

The litmus test for "settled" science, in any physical science, is not consensus; it is the existence of models that can predict accurately. On that test climate science is not yet settled. That's not to say that the AGW theory has been proved wrong, but it is to say that no theory has yet been proved right.

I thought the IPCC report producers had eliminated the sun from having any bearing on the earth's climate .. have they reconsidered?

The models that have been used for years have now been shown to be rather too simplistic as none of them predicted the cooling, or lack of warming for the past or so years, I note that there are plenty of edits to the IPCC and other reports with the benefit of hindsight, but we're told that now we should believe the new predictions .. rather a loss of credibility there I think.

The bottom line is, we can't tell what the climate will do, nor can we tell what will or will not affect it. I know that will hurt some feelings and challenge some belief systems, but look at the evidence, not the rantings of prophets .. you know they used to stone "false prophets" ? Maybe that would make some people more circumspect in their headlong desire for attention to consider the damage they do when alarming the public.

Nickisname: "Good article, Mark. The whole greenhouse debate would benefit from a lot more focus on the actual empirical evidence, as you have assembled it here."

What rot. What about hearing from some actual active climate scientists, instead of journalists? Online Opinion is really exposing is biases by giving so many of these twits so much air time. Online democracy indeed - who chooses these authors?

It is clear from his conclusion from his "graphs" that he really doesn't have a clue: "However, none of the centres can point to anything but failure for the IPCC.". Completely unsubstantiated rubbish. Show me such conclusions in the research reflected by climate science journals. There are no such conclusions.

Arguing about short-term temperature ups and downs and predictions thereof is akin to looking at the tide going in and out, seeing a low tide and saying "well I guess the sea can't be rising". Its just childishly stupid.

"well I guess the sea can't be rising".

"The arctic sea ice isn't melting and the world's glaciers are not retreating either" I suppose.

Perhaps the deniers should be looking at what is actually happening instead of theorising as to to what might not be happening.

David

It's tiring to see deniers trying to make something of a short-term trend rather than the long term temperature record. It smacks of clutching at straws. Take the last hundred years as a trend, do some research on what is driving climate change and find out that an incremental increase is unlikley - it will probably come in pulses, and try to understand that scientific bodies themselves rarely rely on short-term forecasting as they accept the variability from year to year may blur the long-term trend.

Just because there is very little patience and an inability to look long-term in the denial camp (they're all looking for the next bandwagon to jump on to) doesn't mean that long-term change is not taking place and that, at this stage is doesn't appear that we are likely see the dramatic and rapid changes they seem to think that should be happening to prove the warming trend. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen!

Here we go again! Like I have said before, the planet is in its natural changing pattern, and these events were going to happen anyway. The release of Co2 by human beings has just sped up the processes and no, you cant fix it! But we can reduce the number of people to lessen the impact that is to come.

EVO

I'm sorry? I'm supposed to be convinced by 8 years of data? You're going to have to try a little harder than that. Perhaps you could start by demonstrating whether or not the heat content of the oceans is going up or down as only 3% of the energy imbalance of AGW has been going into heating the atmosphere; or to put it another way cooling atmosphere does not necessarily equal cooling earth.

For all those who think that the tag "climate scientist" infers some infallibility should think again.
There are equally well credentialed scientists on both sides of the discussion and you can opinion shop for your favorite bias like you can shop for a legal opinion.
But since we are being asked to spend trillions of dollars globally to reduce the amount of CO2e's, I think that we have every right to question the THEORIES of any scientist, climatic or otherwise.
And I do accept that climate has changed and is changing as it has always done.

Little Brother: "For all those who think that the tag "climate scientist" infers some infallibility should think again."

That's a silly strawman argument, so we'll move on.

"There are equally well credentialed scientists on both sides of the discussion and you can opinion shop for your favorite bias like you can shop for a legal opinion." [sic]

So go and look at the peer-reviewed climate science journals such as Climatic Change and do your "shopping". That is where the discussion of climate science by climate scientists is going on after all. There are no more articles there denying human-caused climate change than there are article claiming that the earth is flat in the geoscience journals.

Here - see for yourself - the abstracts are free:

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

Some of the full articles are free also. Once you are finished, come back and tell us how many deniers you saw.

Online Opinion probably thinks it is being 'fair' by giving deniers so much air time. If you applied that logic then we should be seeing articles by Flat Earthers all over OLO. Seriously - these people exists and even have a society. Their argument use much the same language as climate change deniers to try to undermine mainstream science and say it is all part of a big conspiracy.

I love the way 100 years of record is touted as the "long term average"! What a joke. The present geological epoch, the Holocene is 10,000 years in duration. There's no conclusive proof that CO2 from human sources causes global warming, and how is the recent (since 1998) levelling and/or cooling trends explained?

I also love the way one "scorching summer" (I remember many such while growing up in western Sydney) suggests global warming while record cold temperatures in southwestern WA (including an all-time low for WA in August), northern NSW and other places in Australia are ignored.

I think the whole scientific community should follow the famous advice given by Hollywood producer Sam Warner, who said:

"Never make forecasts, particularly about the future".

If you study the logic of some AGW exponents ,the lack of sun spot activity will be due to us releasing to much CO2.How's that!GW causes Global Cooling!Ra the Sun God has got angry at man for releasing too much CO2.Water vapour accounts for 95% if GW and man made CO2 accounts for 0.117% of GW.[Prof Springer]It does not add up.

Good article Mark.It is about time that real statistics and empirical science entered the debate instead of this emotional scare mongering.

viking13: "There's no conclusive proof that CO2 from human sources causes global warming, and how is the recent (since 1998) levelling and/or cooling trends explained?"

Maybe you should think about reading the forum comments first before you broadcast. Repeating the same old dogma, while ignoring what people are saying, is about the equivalent of putting you hands over your ears and yelling "La, la, la, la "..

Arjay: "Water vapour accounts for 95% if GW and man made CO2 accounts for 0.117% of GW.[Prof Springer]It does not add up."

Oh right, because you are *so* much smarter than:
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, CSIRO, InterAcademy Council (IAC), the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, National Research Council (US), European Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, International Union for Quaternary Research, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Geological Sciences, European Geosciences Union, Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia), Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), American Statistical Association, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, American Association of State Climatologists, Network of African Science Academies.

... but of course you probably think that they are all involved in some big conspiracy, just like the Flat Earth Society says.

Now Sams,Prof Severinghause who is a GW exponent admits that CO2 does not initiate GW but merely acts as an amplifier.He also admits that new ice core data is correct and that CO2 increases follow GW.CO2 gets released from the oceans.How does CO2 make all the other gases absorb and retain more heat energy?For every molecule of CO2 there are 2500 molecules of other gases that make up our atmosphere.

Can you explain this anomaly in you own words,without making vague references to sites that cannot explain it.

Arjay by your reasoning everybody who has been convicted of drink driving has met with an injustice. A blood alcohol reading of 0.05% is one part in 2000, surely that can't make a difference. Perhaps we should hand their licences back immediately.

Arjay: "Can you explain this anomaly in you own words,without making vague references to sites that cannot explain it."

Now Arjay, I assume you mean Severinghaus. This has already been done on other threads on OLO, as you well know.

I'm sure you'd like nothing more than to drag this into a foggy miasma where you keep putting up an endless supply of pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and others keep explaining how you're wrong (and repeat them all over again in the next thread of course), so that you can give other readers the impression that there is some sort of serious scientific debate going on. Its a classic delaying charade documented here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_controversy

as used by holocaust deniers, the tobacco industry, and other dregs of humanity.

Instead, let's hear what Severinghaus himself says about people deliberately misinterpreting and misquoting his scientific work (particularly Andrew Bolt):

"Many, many other studies have found that carbon dioxide causes the earth to warm. This is not controversial, and to continue to deny it is akin to denying that cigarette smoking causes cancer" [Severinghaus]

"The evidence for a human-caused warming of the globe is overwhelming. The scientific debate is over, and what we are seeing now is an attempt to mislead the public." [Severinhaus]

"At the very least I would like it to go on record that Bolt's abuse of my science is not done with my approval" [Severinghaus]

Arjay: "For every molecule of CO2 there are 2500 molecules of other gases that make up our atmosphere."

You try to imply that this means that CO2 is somehow insignificant, which most readers would see through instantly. Example: for every molecule of folate you eat there are 10 billion other molecules that make up your food. Does this mean folate isn't important? Don't be absurd.

A thousand cheers to Sams, who patiently refutes the same old nonsense from the same old denialists. As I've said before, I don't generally bother any more when dealing with people who intractably ignore the vast bulk of evidence in favour of the confected anomalies that suit their 'business as usual' position.

I'm so glad they're in an increasingly marginalised minority.

Pretty graph. Do you have one for the arctic 98 - 08?

Sams,a poor analogy.Folic acid is a trace molecule and good for human chemistry.It has nothing to do with energy absorbtion by individual atoms.While it is true that pure CO2 in lab experiments can raise temps after 20 min 4 deg C higher than the ambient air,when we do the dilution of CO2 to 385 ppm and only 30% of this has been added by man,CO2 is a very minor influence on climate.

There is no doubt we are affecting climate.I'd look more towards the reduction of forests and the progression of the deserts are being more of an affect.

There are a multitude of factors that have yet to be considered and more research is the answer.

Arjay: "There are a multitude of factors that have yet to be considered and more research is the answer."

You wish.

Another demonstration of why science is best done by trained scientists.
Letting journalists interpret complex data is a joke: stick to stock market forcasts or tattslotto please!

In the global climate more "Heat" does *not* necessarily mean more "Temperature".

Sams

Look I have an opinion that is somewhat different to yours. I can accept your right to hold you view and I respect you.

When you start comparing me with 'holocaust deniers, the tobacco industry, and other dregs of humanity.' I do tend to become a tad miffed.

Why can't you give the same right to hold an opinion and respect to me?

I think an apology is in order. I and others don't deserve such abuse ... even if we might appear, in your opinion, wrong in our opinions.

It definately has to be co2 is the cause, There's more revenue in co2 than in a moving desert.

keith: "When you start comparing me with 'holocaust deniers, the tobacco industry, and other dregs of humanity.' I do tend to become a tad miffed"

Keith, I suspect you need to follow what I've written more carefully. To recap, I wrote: "a classic delaying charade documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_controversy as used by holocaust deniers, the tobacco industry, and other dregs of humanity."

Now if you are such a person that engages in artificial controversy techniques to try to delay the acceptance of human-caused global warming, then, yes, I am referring to you. Otherwise, you've gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, and can safely de-miff.

I haven't impinged on your "right to hold an opinion" or on your right to free speech (which is what I think the really mean) in any way, and so I certainly will not be apologising on that front.

If some people are not expressing their true opinion, but instead attempting to falsely engineer the debate, as I suspect a few are, then I won't apologise to them either, because putting us all at risk in doing so does indeed make them the dregs of humanity.

Currently CO2 in our atmosphere is 385 parts per million.Of this man has added 30%.This is 107 ppm.Somehow the CO2 which man has added,absorbs is 9,346 times more energy than the rest of the gases in our atmosphere.Now pure CO2 in lab experiments will be hotter by 4 deg C after 20 minutes than ambient air.Divide 4 by 10,000 and this will give us a factor of raised temp of 0.0004 deg C.This is approx 4 ten thousandths of a degree.

The maths does not divide up to equal a logical answer!

Arjay: "The maths does not divide up to equal a logical answer!"

... because the question does not remotely make sense.

Arjay
Your ignorance of physics and chemistry is really embarrassing.
That GHG experiment was simplistic, for primary/junior high school.
To help you graduate to the next level ... the invitation still stands.

I hope Arjay was a bit tiddly when he wrote that.

Sams, you should be ashamed of yourself. You resort to the worst trick of argument: appeal to authority. It doesn't matter how many people say something is true, it doesn't make it so. Go and read the Emperor's New Clothes .. maybe you weren't allowed to read fairytales when you were a kid. If you think history has more authority, then how about coming to terms with the fact that every generation of mainstream thinkers believe they have the right model of reality ... until somebody else comes along with one that works better. How dare people talk about denialists or flat-earthers in the same breath. The people who took us out of the flat earth model were the denialists of the day.

You have a point Crock.

Just over 100 years ago, Svante Arhenius, a Swedish physicist/chemist (Nobel 1903) put forward a theory in relation to CO2.

He was a denier of the then current orthodoxy.

More can be learned here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Ah Sams 'I made you answer my question.Read my analogy and point out the flaws in my arguement without vague references to a higher authority.The figures are correct so expose the flaws.

Q&A,Tyndall again like others talks about amplification and feedback influences of CO2 but cannot exactly explain how CO2 actually does this.Could you explain this simply for us idiots in your own words without references to a long winded expose that circumvents my exact analogy?

Crock: "Sams, you should be ashamed of yourself. You resort to the worst trick of argument: appeal to authority. It doesn't matter how many people say something is true".

Good point. I note our illustrious "Minister for Climate Change etc" Penny Wong on Lateline Tuesday night when attempting to explain the demise of the Murray-Darling system used the IPCC "forecast" for 2050 of reduced rainfall (like it's only 2008 isn't it?), and " a vast body of scientific evidence", none of which she could quote, as "evidence". Lambasting the Opposition for "denialism" does not explain the state of this great river system. She dodged the question.

I would have thought that over-allocation of water from upstream was the major culprit, but who am I to spoil a good story from our Climate Change Fuhrer?

For your interest, here is a link to the Ionospheric Prediction
Service and their sunspot counts.

http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6

Arjay there's no dispute among the scientific community CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Back-of-the-envelope calculations don't really do climate analysis justice.

Ah Samso, the smear-and-run king. Like a cane toad - a poisonous mud-thrower. By his own definition, the dregs of the earth. Don't hold your breath for an apology keith. But who cares. His comparing of climate 'deniers' with flat earthers destroys any claim to be taken seriously. There is more evidence in these comments that he is just stupid than there is for what he sees others denying. It is he who is in denial of the failure of evidence to match models. And why shouldn't other factors be considered like sunspots? His beleif in this as an 'armoury' of denial is just bad science.

dogstarr, you can't be sirius!

(I'll just go and lie down ...)

FYI:

"What's Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)"

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm

"the current minimum is not abnormally low or long" [NASA solar physicist David Hathaway]

'Crock' mentions "appeal to authority". He confuses a fallacy of formal mathematical logic with legitimate construction of practical knowledge. i.e. the old "you can't prove anything" line.

To illustrate this:

The framework of science is one continuous "appeal to authority". The speed of light is 299792458 metres per second. How do I know that? Not because I personally have measured it, but because other people that I trust have. I trust their authority of knowledge enough to rely on this value.

Another example: Suppose you suddenly feel very ill. You collapse. There are two people present, a doctor and a 10 year old kid. If the doctor tells you to take medicine A or you will have a cardiac arrest within 30 seconds, but the kid says no don't it looks 'icky', I expect you would take the medicine. I'd trust the doctor's authority of knowledge over the kid in this situation.

Both examples illustrate the practicalities of knowledge. In the first case, I don't want to have to prove every single scientific fact that I need to use in my work. It would take me a thousand lifetimes, so I would never actually get anything new done. In the second case, I don't have time to mess around, so I'll use what I consider to be the best source of knowledge. Note that in both cases I haven't formally 'proven' each key fact. This is what I mean by 'practical knowledge'.

In the case of climate change, I trust the national science acadamies of the G8+5 nations plus a host of other key science organisation over the theories of a handful of cranks who are mstly funded by fossil fuel companies. We don't have time to mess around.

By the way, Crock and dogstarr are both aliases set up purely to disagree with me - see their user profiles which list all of their posts. OLO clearly needs some tools to deal with astroturfing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

I've got the likes of Sams stumped.Yes Sams we accept that the speed of light is 300,000 kms per sec,but also the amount of co2 added by man is 107ppm or one part in ten thousand of our atmosphere.For the umteenth time,how is CO2,10,000 times per molecule more absorbent of the sun's energy than all the other molecules in our atmosphere?

We have a dumb silence from both our true believers and a poor analogy equating facts like the speed of light and the interaction of the laws of physics.What we have is not a chemical reaction but the absorbtion of energy by atoms/molecules that have similar atomic masses.Oxygen for eg has an equivalent atomic mass of 15 to carbon,yet we are led to believe that it is 10,000 times more powerful is retaining the Sun's energy?

The reality is this,CO2 is just guilt by association.The ice core data prior 2005 assumed that CO2 caused heating,new data reveals that heating causes CO2 to be released from the oceans some 800 yrs later.

No one on this site can contradict logically in their own words,the assertions which I've made.I rest my case.

Sams, you have outdone yourself. I just checked my own user profile. If you care to do so again .. just make sure you get the spelling right .. you will find that was my first contribution to the forum, and this is my second. Please explain to me how that make me an astroturfer .. whatever that is. This is the first time I have contributed to any forum on climate change EVER under any name. Furthermore I am a genuine agnostic when it comes to climate change .. and I use the word "agnostic" advisedly, given the fundamentalist tendancies your contributions display. Your zealotry is a poor advertisement for your cause. Your attacks on people who disagree with you are reprehensible. An apology would be appropriate, but given your tactics so far, I am not holding my breath.
As for your defence of your arguing tactics, put yourslef in my position. If you were undecided about a particular issue, had read arguments on both sides and were still unconvinced, would it be a list of names that finally persuaded you, or a logical presentaTion of facts?

"No one on this site can contradict logically in their own words,the assertions which I've made.I rest my case."

No one needs to. You need to have a logical question first, not a bunch of incoherent mumbo jumbo. Besides, this is a policy discussion, not a science forum.

If you want to look up the science of CO2 and its interaction with EM radiation, its not hard to find it. Here's a clue: you prattle on about atomic weight: the way atoms interact with infrared radiation has nothing to do with the weight of their nucleus and everything to do with the configuration of their electrons. You prove once and for all you haven't a clue about basic physics concepts.

...and once again the discussion descends into nasty abuse and mud-slinging. It would be nice if such childish behaviour were left where it belongs. In parliament.

Ah Sams ,how does the configuration of the electrons affect the absorbtion of energy by CO2 molecules?When you talk about energy exchanges at an electron level you are talking about chemical reations which involve the exchange of positive and negative ions.Energy from the Sun causes molecules to vibrate.CO2 does absorb at least 10% more energy than other gases,but you are saying that the additional ratio by man of CO2 1:10,000 is somehow more potent by a factor of 1,000.

I suspect Sams,that your theory of configuration of electrons is nothing but poetic licence.There are three energy levels Sams.Kinetic energy caused by movement and heating,chemical energy involved in the exchange of ions and nulear energy that which powers our Sun.
Which energy are you alluding to in relation to CO2?

Arjay: "but you are saying that the additional ratio by man of CO2" .. blah .. blah

I'm never said anything of the sort. There is no point discussing the science with someone that doesn't know the fundamentals. I simply pointed out that you are clueless when it comes to physics, and are just spewing forth incoherent mumbo jumbo. Something that is more than adequately illustrated by your description of kinetic energy, chemical energy, etc. as "energy levels".

Crock: "Sams, you have outdone yourself."

But according to you you've only just joined in the last day. How can you say I've "outdone myself"? Then you deny you are an astroturfer but then say (all innocent like) "whatever that is" despite the link I provided for everyone. Hmm.

It looks to me like Arjay's stumbled upon some high school science textbooks and he's trying to refute AGW with them. Sams is right - he obviously hasn't a clue about the basic physics and chemistry and is just embarrassing himself.

I think that Sams is also right about the 'astroturfers' - they often pop up here on certain topics, and AGW is certainly one of them.

Hmmm ... so it's a cardinal sin to enter a forum for the first time? The other part of your accusation was that "crock "was an alias set up to attack you! Sounds like delusions of grandeur to me or maybe just the common garden variety elitism which runs through your posts, . Why won't the ignorant masses just shut up and think what they're told to? There are very few hard facts in the universe, Sams, and as far as I can see, you have yet to find one, whether it's about human beings or global warming.

Arjay,

With sincerity, I have (on a number of occasions) invited you to Professor Barry Brooks' site:

http://bravenewclimate.com/

You have chosen not to engage, preferring OLO with its word limits, post and time constraints - that is your choice.

Given that your understanding of the science is very rudimentary, may I suggest you consider reading the following 'on-line'. It is only one chapter, but quite illuminating.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/4992.htm

This thread has gone way off topic, but serious issues have followed; not least the inadequacy of education in science and the understanding of it.

I am sure you have special skills and expertise in certain fields, but you must admit, it is not in science, and certainly not in any of the 'climate sciences'.

I would much prefer to hear/listen to your opinions on how we (humanity) are going to adapt to a warmer and wetter world (and all that entails).

I would also appreciate your opinions on how to mitigate GHG pollution.

We only have one planet Earth to experiment with, it would be wise to proceed with caution - don't you think?

Sunspot watchers might be interested in this page.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/sun-has-first-spotless-calendar-month-since-1913/

David

Sams - "By the way, Crock and dogstarr are both aliases set up purely to disagree with me - see their user profiles which list all of their posts."

Right on, crock. lol. Who does this bloke think he is? I didn't know what astroturfing was either but this clown must be smokin the stuff. So I posted a whole 2 comments to you DregSams. Why? (Here's one of your little hints for you: It's got something to do with you being an idiot)

Thanks for the support Dogstarr .. we astroturfers had better stick together.
I'd like to address Q@A's recent comments.
regardless of what is causing global warming and regardless of whether it will continue, the (almost) undebatable issue is how the huge developing populations of China and India will get the quantity of power (per person) they are seeking to approach the quantity of power we already use but are seeking to reduce. How will the world get the power it needs to lift material living standards ... and also deal with the (predicted) effects of global warming: (eg need for more refrigerated air condiitioning, power to desalinate water, power to run enclosed and scientifically manipulated farms, etc)? This is where baby-boomer environmentalists and their philosophical spawn who are so defensive of the greenhouse effect run into an awkward dilemma, because as even Tim Flannery acknowledges, nuclear probably has to be at least part of the solution. As a Greenhouse doubter who has been been switching off lights and saving power (I even have a solar oven!) for most of my 54 years, I am sceptical of the willingness of the masses to put up with increased climatic discomfort using less power ... even when mindlessly accepting the word of SAMS' priestly caste!

CJ Morgan you are an interloper who has not the courage to enter into direct logical debate nor the intellectual capacity to understand what I'm writing.You are but half right.I had a passion for science at school and at present am argueing from what I'd learnt back in 1969.I have faith in my own logic and not in the likes of Ross Garnaut who have no qualifications in science.
I well may be wrong,but I like others should have the right to question conventional wisdom.

"I have faith in my own logic and not in the likes of Ross Garnaut who have no qualifications in science."

Nor do you have qualifications in science. Garnaut's report is not a scientific study but a policy study, based on the results of scientific studies from trusted sources. Its function is to gauge the impact of climate change on the Australian economy. Garnaut is a professor of economics, and so it is an appropriate scope for him. For scientific studies, refer to the peer-reviewed climate science journals.

There you go again, Sams. Appeal to authority. Don't you think that's exactly what Galileo would have had to put up with?

"Peer review," "appeals to authority" as in "All governments and scientific bodies agree with it, so it must be right" - this is the limit of Sams' ideologically motivated argument.
Peer review is the old boys club agreeing with each other.
The IPCC is a POLITICAL process- not a scientific one.
Even some scientists deeply involved in the IPCC process do not agree with its conclusions or recommendations.
It is a tragedy that science has become so involved with politics, for if it keeps going in this direction, soon no-one will believe what any scientist has to say.

Crock: "There you go again, Sams. Appeal to authority. Don't you think that's exactly what Galileo would have had to put up with?"

I won't repeat my arguments on why humans have a belief system that is based on "who to trust". Feel free to re-read my earlier post as you clearly didn't get it the first time around. "Appeal to authority" is an indispensable method for forming beliefs for every human. Otherwise we wouldn't trust any information source regardless of who authored them: books, newspapers, journals, etc. Clearly you don't really understand why you believe what you think you know :-)

Scientists in Galileo's time were under the thumb of the Catholic church, as so it was an entirely different situation. These days anyone can train to be a scientist and publish in peer-reviewed science journals (I did for example). Why don't you? There are vast ranges of differing scientific opinions for example in the areas of quantum cosmology - there is no big conspiracy theory forcing people not to publish their theories. The whole idea of such a conspiracy is just a silly story by ignorant people who have never interacted with the science community.

One last logic lesson:

If person A disagrees with a scientific theory and person A turns out to be right, that does NOT mean that every person that disagrees with a scientific theory is right.

Crock, your post: “I'd like to address Q@A's recent comments”.

Your questions are serious and must be addressed, indeed they are. Did you have a chance to watch Professor Ross Garnaut’s address to the National Press Club on Friday? Here’s a press release;

http://www.garnautreport.org.au/reports/Media%20release%20-%205sept08%20-%20Targets%20and%20trajectories%20-%20Supplementary%20Draft%20Report.pdf

I’m looking forward to the details in his final report.

The problem (‘unintended consequences’) the world is having is to do with its (mis)use of energy and its capacity for sustainable development – you alluded to it yourself. There is robust and rigorous evidence that this latest ‘climate change’ is in large part but a symptom of human activity.

I (like you) am also sceptical of the “willingness of the masses”, particularly in their rapacious consumerism mind-set, to now address the issues of global warming.

However, world leaders (from ALL political persuasions) and captains of industry from America to China know there is a problem with global warming, and they are trying (mostly) to do something about it. This is the hard part, because it is up to politicians and economists to take the next step.

Scientists can only do what they do best, present the science. What Brendon Nelson or Kevin Rudd does with the science is their dilemma.

In defence of Sams;
I understand where he is coming from. It is very frustrating for someone from a scientific background to be disbelieved and castigated when their very existence is premised on truth. It is very disturbing to have people from bus drivers to accountants telling them they have got it wrong. Thankfully the real decision and policy makers are not stupid, contrary to popular belief!

Btw, ‘anti-greenhouse gas believers’ are not the ‘Galileo’s of today’ – if anybody was, try Arhenius – the ‘deniers’ (I-don’t-know-what-to-call-them-anymore's) still believe he was a fruitloop at best, heretic at worse.
_____________

Froggie says:

“It is a tragedy that science has become so involved with politics, for if it keeps going in this direction, soon no-one will believe what any scientist has to say.”

No Froggie
It is a tragedy that politics has become so involved with science.

Precisely, Q & A, politics has hijacked science.

As I said, even scientists deeply involved with the IPCC process have disavowed its conclusions and recommendations. I notice you don't comment about that.

Froggie, you say I didn’t comment on your statement:

“... even scientists deeply involved with the IPCC process have disavowed its conclusions and recommendations.”

I apologise if I seemed to ignore you, but we are all limited by word counts, number of posts, etc and I do have another life – particularly on Father’s Day. Besides, this is why I prefer other science sites, they don’t have these constraints.

Anyway, if you look at my history, you would know where I stand on the IPCC.

Let me say this (the brood having departed), some scientists (about 1%) actively engaged in a climate related science disagree with the “consensus” view of the IPCC.

I respect some of these ‘contrarian’ scientists greatly (e.g. Dick Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Nir Shaviv and the like). They are true AGW sceptics (in the scientific sense) and believe me – I want their hypotheses to be right.

But ... they have not (yet) been able to come up with robust and rigorous arguments that can discount CO2-e as a major driver to this current bout of global warming. If they can knock AGW on the head they will become famous and could probably add a Nobel or Fields Medal to their CV!

OTOH, there are some other scientists and groups (including industry lobbyists, ‘think-tanks’, political PR spin-doctors, etc) that don’t like the structure (or intellect, relevance or ability) of the IPCC.

So be it, these ‘deniers, delayers, naysayers, whatever) are perfectly entitled to their opinion.

Further, these same scientists don’t want to critique science in the proper forums (preferring populist media, ‘denialist’ blogspots or shock-jock web sites) ... it can be argued that they have credibility issues.

Science doesn’t work like that and many people don’t understand this.

The IPCC does NOT represent 2500+ scientists.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

May I suggest you also look at the UNFCCC site.

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Adapting to climate change is a tough task (and won’t happen overnight), so too is mitigating GHG emissions. But to deny or delay taking action is selfish at best, irrational at worst.

Q&A in defence of Sams: "It is very frustrating for someone from a scientific background to be disbelieved and castigated when their very existence is premised on truth."

Yet directly above from Sams himself: "...humans have a belief system that is based on 'who to trust'"

If this were a court room, I'd be glancing at the jury now.

Sams , I "get" your argument, and I suspect you get mine only too well, so you resort to more facile, pre-fab appeals to other authority, just to muddy the water a little more in your favour. Admit the obvious. You don't have the ability to persuade anyone of your arguments using your own skills, so you tell me I should believe it because it's the accepted wisdom (and throw in some abuse to help you along). Of course I accept many scientific concepts I don't fully understand, but I accept them on the basis that they are PROBABLY true because so far nothing has happened to prove them untrue. In other words , with our imperfect knowledge of the universe, we proceed with existing models until other facts prove them wrong, or perhaps just in need of tweaking. Of course you are very careful to give examples of science that is in that exact category. Greenhouse theory is transparently not in that category. The proof of the pudding is not in the heating, so to speak. Just as I don't automatically accept (for example) that any new wonder drug is safe because the bulk of scientific opinion says so, neither will I commit myself wholeheartedly to any new "model" until it has stood the test of time. It's about being able to accept uncertainty, Sams. I think that's very hard for you to do.

Q&A, I think you misunderstand my point. i'll come back to it later.

Crock: "Sams , I "get" your argument" ... "Of course I accept many scientific concepts I don't fully understand".

Well there you demonstrate again that you don't "get" it. For example, I "understand" how to measure the distance form the Earth to the sun, but I have never done the calculation. I *trust* the results of others, based on their reputation.

Crock: "neither will I commit myself wholeheartedly to any new "model" until it has stood the test of time"

That might be OK if we had the luxury of time, but the point is that we just don't. Global warming is proceeding much more rapidly that we would have liked. What are you going to wait until all of the ice caps and glaciers are melted, where the exposed ocean and ground increase the warming to the point where the change is irreversible? Do you understand the degree of environmental damage that would do? The human cost would be beyond anything we have ever known.

Sams, you keep saying how clever you are, so maybe you are just too smart for me. maybe you noticed somewhere in my posts (there have been quite a few now, am I still an astroturfer?) but I've just forgotten where it was, that I said we should do nothing about our the way we use energy? For nearly forty years I have advocated we use less power, more renewables, less water and every other thing that greenies go on about in their boring way. Not only that but I have followed those principles in my own life, and as far as I can tell a lot more devotedly than some whole-hearted disciples of your greenhouse priests or the priests themselves. I see no reason to stop doing so now because I'm not convinced of a particular scientific argument which happens to have similar solutions to problems i believe DO exist. In your post you seem to tacitly admit the science isn't proven. Are you trying to tell me it is also a "luxury" to debate it? To try and found out what's actually happening? what about the several billion people who would like to have the same material living standard that you and I do, Sams? Don't they have the right to know the science is right? Curiously, Indian scientists commisioned by their Government came up with a very different view of the future when they looked at the "facts" than all the people you seem to slavishly follow ...

Amazing, quite a few posts and all of them attacking Sams. Probably not an astroturfer, just your run-of-the-mill sock puppet.

What a crock.

Bugsy : As my father used to say, I was talking to the butcher, not the block.

And I bet he said it to you often.

Crock: "Sams, you keep saying how clever you are, so maybe you are just too smart for me."

On he contrary, I think you are deliberately playing stupid. But I could be mistaken.

Crock: "Curiously, Indian scientists commisioned by their Government came up with a very different view of the future when they looked at the "facts" than all the people you seem to slavishly follow"

If its the study I think you are referring to then, no, they didn't "come up with a very different view of the future" at all. All they said was that a *few* of the typical signatures of global warming weren't currently apparent in their area. Others were. I've seen this same study miused a few times now.

Crock: "Bugsy : As my father used to say, I was talking to the butcher, not the block."

Would that be Crock the sock talking to the block?:-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

"the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company"

Sams, dunno about the Indian report, perhaps you are right, but I read quoted slabs which gave me a different impression.
I think I'll probably leave it there, Sams, because you don't seem to be genuinely interested in convincing somebody who is undecided. After "appeal to authority" you've moved on to "change the subject". You seem to think the character analysis part is the most important part of the discussion .. rather than just a bit of seasoning ... presumably because you don't have to address the other points I made in my last post.
And believe it or not, I sincerely don't get the "sockpuppet" insult. I don't know who you are. Is "Sams" your real name? Are you a sockpuppet too? The argument doesn't do a lot for your credibility. i don't provide my personal details because I don't want my email clogged up with abusive messages, or people ringing me on my home phone and abusing me the way they abuse people in the forum. I haven't called you any names, SAMS, because that's another technique of dishonest argument. I wish you the best of luck in creating a better world. We all want it.

Bugsy, I don't think you need to defend Sams, he is more than capable of looking after himself.

Of course, YOU may be a sockpuppet. You could also be a "strawman sockpuppet" or even a "meat puppet".

Wikipedia is quite interesting, isn't it?

I don't believe that Sams is not being attacked by sockpuppets, because the writing style of each appears to be quite different.

Anyway, Sams is entitled to his point of view, and to promote it, even if I and many others consider his view to be wrong-headed.

Back to the subject. Here is another point of view about the IPCC process.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html

Froggie: "I don't believe that Sams is not being attacked by sockpuppets"

Bit of a Freudian slip?

Of course, should the site admins decide to do an IP address check of the logs against the user names, the situation would become a great deal clearer.

I am happy to have my account checked. Anyone else volunteering?

I haven't defended Sams an any way, Froggie. He is far better at this particular branch of science than I. I just severely dislike sock puppets. It's a nasty way of pretending to have support when the reality is quite different or being able to post nasty comments without having it as a blot on your posting history. And it happens reasonably often around here. Isn't the internet wonderful?

Which also leaves open the question, if the Crock is not a sock puppet, then he/she/it is merely a rude individual. It's kind of odd isn't it, a lurker who appears to have read the forum for a reasonable amount of time, just has to bother to register and unload on Sams, because it seems that he (she?) is one of the few around these parts to have the tenacity and patience to bother responding to comments that quite frankly are often quite asinine in their ignorance (eg the molecular weight thing from Arjay, that made me LOL, no idea about quantum properties and absorption/emission spectra of electrons, great stuff).

And as if that isn't enough, what are the chances that TWO of them show up at the same time and do exactly the same thing?

IP check in aisle six, please.

Froggie

I am not surprised by your response, backed up by an architect John McLean ... goes by the tag 'Snowman' on OLO, but you knew that.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch_2.php#comment-681752

You link to McLean's OZ piece, another point of view is;

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/09/spot-the-recycled-denial-iv-%E2%80%93-climate-case-built-on-thin-foundation/

___________

Crock
"Q&A, I think you misunderstand my point. i'll come back to it later."

Possibly, could you be more clear in your meaning.

Goodness. Looks like Bugsy wants it both ways. If I’m not a “sockpuppet”, then I’m a “rude individual.” or a “lurker.” It sounds like Bugsy’s running out of arguments too, so resorts to thinking up new names for me! I’m flattered, really. But is he sincerely holding him or herself and Sams as examples of “polite individuals”?

Conceptualise this,Bugsy: i was moved to enter the forum because I was frankly appalled by Sams’ arguing techniques . I happily admit that I can’t debate the science, but my issue with SAMS was NOT with his science, as you would realise if you had read my posts with even vague attention. I can question and challenge the techniques of argument, in particular “X august individuals and or organisations say this is true so don’t you dare question it/” and I think that is entirely appropriate given the kind of arguments that SAMS has been putting forward in that area of thought.

Of course I’m perfectly happy to have my record checked by the administrators. And I would love Sams to provide me with an apology when his allegation is proved wrong, but I suspect he’ll just think up a new name. Or let Bugsy do it for him.

Q&A: sorry, I’m only allowed 2 posts in 24 hours, I will endeavour to return to that subject tomorrow night.

It's a common feature of many in your position, Crock: none of you know much about the science and are usually happy to admit as such. Which is odd when we are talking about a scientific topic is it not?

All you rely on is picking out what you think are logical fallacies of argumentation after reading about them on Wikipedia, but with no actual content on the data whatsoever.

I am not polite to be sure, but at least I do have other interests. I also tend to believe the scientists and scientific organisations that have reviewed the data. The peer review system is not perfect certainly, but it's light-years ahead of any of the alternatives in determining the veracity of claims. To argue against the conclusions drawn from the scientific synthesis of multiple studies on what you think is a logical fallacy or erroneous style of argument by a blogger is a bit of a narrow focus don't you think? It's not a scientific position you are taking, nor even one interested with the truth from what I can tell, because no one is going to convince you out of your position, of that I am fairly sure. Because the internet for most of you is not a place to discuss and weigh the truth of the science, that happens without you (thank goodness). For you, it is a place to voice your opinion and to have it reinforced by others that think the same way as yourself.

The position adopted by persons happily admitting ignorance of the science pale, as they become something akin to "I am ignorant of the processes and data used to derive the conclusions but I since there is a political element to this stuff, it is probably stupid/wrong/a left wing conspiracy/[insert silly conclusion of choice here].

Of course I always live in hope that someone tries what Arjay did, that stuff is gold man.

Oh, and one last piece of advice: try and post in multiple threads when puppeteering, it makes it more believable.

Crock, apparently paraphrasing me: "X august individuals and or organisations say this is true so don’t you dare question it"

Sure, you can question it, and by "it" I assume you mean the scientific finding that the current regime of climate change is caused by humans. Nobody is stopping you. To do so you should have the capacity to understand and analyse the science.

The best way to question it would then be to publish your finding in the climate science journals, and have it look at by other climate scientists, not by putting it in a policy opinion forum such as this.

Ian Castles is one such person that tries to deliver articles that look like a scientific analysis here, yet admits:

Ian Castles: "there’s not even a remote possibility that a climate science journal would accept this article"

Essentially, I can't see any valid reason not to trust the findings of the world's top science organisations on this issue.

What concerns me are the individuals deliberately trying to trip up policy development for climate change by:

(a) manufacturing an artificial "the jury is still out" controversy, when in fact if you look at the climate science journals you will see that there is no controversy within the climate scientist community on the question of whether humans, mainly through CO2, are causing the current climate change

(b) putting together some shoddy and obscure pseudo-science that would never be accepted in a science journal, and pushing out into places like OLO and other public media

(b) conjuring up some absurd conspiracy theory that all of the governments and the climate scientists of the world are colluding on fake results, so that climate scientists can get rich (sadly laughable if you've ever seen their wages)

I admit that it makes me angry because these people are putting us all in danger in return for satisfying their vested interests.

Bugsy: "All you rely on is picking out what you think are logical fallacies of argumentation after reading about them on Wikipedia, but with no actual content on the data whatsoever."

Are you talking to crock or Sams?

"To argue against the conclusions drawn from the scientific synthesis of multiple studies on what you think is a logical fallacy or erroneous style of argument by a blogger is a bit of a narrow focus don't you think?"

Are you suggesting fallacy and error are acceptable means to seeking truth?

Sams: " The best way to question it would then be to publish your finding in the climate science journals, and have it look at by other climate scientists, not by putting it in a policy opinion forum such as this." Can you provide a reference for one of your peer-reviewed climate science papers?

"Ian Castles is one such person that (sic) tries to deliver articles that look like a scientific analysis here..."

Ian refutes this in the commentary on his article above, so it's quite cowardly to repeat it down here. Speaking of fallacies, this is an example of what literary critics Beardsley and Wimsatt call the Intentional Fallacy - it is fallacious to argue what someone has intended in their work, and then say that they have failed for not meeting your idea of the intention (and then you admit that you haven't even read the article!). Quite hilarious.

Ian has written an opinion piece (this is an opinion site) and your quotes above are deceitfully taken out of context. If you only care about "peer" reviewed climate science papers, well by all means, go to them, but the one thing you haven't been able to do here is respond to Ian's clear and concise article.

Sorry, to write this here on your thread Mark, but one endeavours to follow and expose the tangled web Sams weaves

Excellent points, fungochumley.

Bugsy and Sams: Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you two seem to be saying is basically this: I (crock) am not a scientist, therefore I should agree what a majority of climate scientists (not all climate scientists) say, or become a climate scientist myself and subject my theories to peer review. Or otherwise, if I am of sufficiently unsound mind not to blindly accept authority even when authority is unable to convince me with well-put, comprehensible arguments , I should not open my mouth about it to anyone because I am undermining this important mission to save humanity from itself. (And we know how good science is at saving the world, don’t we? )

On the basis of this, you are presumably saying that a consensus of specialist scientists can never be questioned or doubted except by specialist scientists.

To me that is a recipe for fascism. I can think of numerous examples in which specialist scientists haven’t had all the facts available and have been wrong, and people without scientific training have suffered because of their mistakes. For example specialist scientists who make medicinal drugs, or who have incorrectly described physical ailments. Eventually through trial and error they get it right. Maybe the same process is happening with climate science, which as I understand it, is a relatively new discipline. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The funny thing about fascism is that people who subscribe to it tend to believe they have the best interests of humanity at heart, and that people who question them are evil.

Despite your tactics, I will continue to remain open-minded about the the possibility that global warming is influenced by people, will continue to conserve electricity and water, ride my bicycle when possible and support the development of non-fossil power sources. meanwhile, you guys won’t win any hearts and minds with self-righteous rage and nasty accusations and insinuations that you know you can’t prove. Maybe the bottom line is that you're not really into saving the world at all ... you're just into control.

Oh Crock, well done you, likening your opponents to Fascists. Like that hasn't been done on the internet before. Who's indulging in a few fallacies now eh?

I especially love the argument by false analogy, hilarious when done properly.

One of the most ironic things about this thread is about the repetitive assertive nature of your "appeal to authority" fallacy. Because Sams use of authoritative panels of climate scientists recommendations and endorsement of findings after reviewing the data actually carry weight and it is not a fallacy. It would be a fallacy perhaps if say, Dr. Ian Frazer said it and it was argued that "if Ian Frazer said it must be true". But citing many panels of experts from many fields that work with climate data? No, that's not a fallacious appeal to authority.

Perhaps you should have read the Wikipedia article after all.

Crock & Co. Nuff said ... I understand (mostly) where you're coming from.

Sams & Co. Nuff said ... Houston, we have a problem.

Let's forget sun-spots for the moment (apologies to Mark) and if I can suggest: Sams or Crock (best dressed) start a new OLO general discussion where we can attempt to rationally (with respect) address the issues raised by the two of you.

How about I kick off the discussion by posing 2 questions:

1. Crock, what will it take for you to believe the scientific orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming?

2. Sams, what can all the academies of science you list do to better inform people of the science and risks associated with anthropogenic global warming?

It would help if we put ourselves in each others shoes.

Your call.

Q&A

You have made a good initiative.

Why I don't believe in AGW:
1. There are a lot of scientists, some in the climate field, who don't agree with the theory.
2. Some of the contributors to the IPCC have distanced themselves from its conclusions and recommendations.
3. There appears to be a strong political side to the pro-AGW argument. As I said before, politics has hijacked science.
4. The AGW side seem to have this "believe or else" attitude.
5. Too much alarmism and ridiculous "scenarios" advanced by leaders and followers of the AGW movement - viz Steven Schneider. Films like "Inconvenient Truth", and "The day after tomorrow".
6. "Scenarios" by way of computer models are influenced heavily by the information that is fed into them. GIGO principal. I can't believe that scientists have managed to put every possible influence and feed-back into their scenarios with something as complex as the climate. Indeed, solar activity was all but ignored until recently.
7. The observed climate does not appear to agree with the models.
8. Al Gore believes in it for the benefit of his hip pocket.
There are other reasons. You are right, the AGW mob needs to do a better job of informing the great unwashed.

Crock: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you two seem to be saying is basically this: I (crock) am not a scientist, therefore I should agree what a majority of climate scientists (not all climate scientists) say, or become a climate scientist myself and subject my theories to peer review."

I indicated that, in my opinion, this was the most effective approach for establishing *scientific* fact. I have not told you the keep quiet, although I have be told that be a few here lately (or possibly by the same person who keeps making up new aliases).

Bugsy: "Oh Crock, well done you, likening your opponents to Fascists. Like that hasn't been done on the internet before."

"As a [forum] discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

fungochumley: "Ian refutes this in the commentary on his article above"

Er, no. Blithely denies is not the same as "refutes".

Froggie: "Why I don't believe in AGW"

Froggie: "There are a lot of scientists, some in the climate field, who don't agree with the theory"

Assuming "the theory" is: 'the current regime of climate change is human-caused, primarily by CO2 emissions'.

No there aren't, far from it. There are a very small number - of those, almost all are linked to the fossil-fuel industry, and almost none in the climate science field. You probably have vastly underestimate the total number of scientists. For example, FASTS boasts a membership of 60,000 *Australian* scientists. If you have a reference estimating the *current* percentage then show it. One way to estimate this is to examine publications in peer-reviewed climate science journals. One of the key criteria of being an active scientist is keeping up publications in such journals, so this is a good measure.

Froggie: "Some of the contributors to the IPCC have distanced themselves from its conclusions and recommendations."

Which authors? Since submissions about the report were open to the public, a number of people that made such submissions have labelled themselves "IPCC expert reviewers" or "contributors".

Froggie: "There appears to be a strong political side to the pro-AGW argument."

The politics is being driven by scientific advice, and the huge community call for action - a big majority and rising.

Froggie: "The AGW side seem to have this "believe or else" attitude"

Or else what?

Froggie: "Too much alarmism and ridiculous "scenarios" .."

That is putting the cart before the horse. If you don't accept the basic theory then the rest will seem ridiculous. Some populist films haven't helped the cause, but there are still some very frightening scenarios, such as the various tipping points that have a good scientific basis.

Froggie: ""Scenarios" by way of computer models are influenced heavily by the information that is fed into them."

Obviously. Its the best we've got. Do you have a better approach, other than wait and see?

Froggie: "The observed climate does not appear to agree with the models."

If anything, climate change is proceeeding faster than predicted

It is a good initiative, Q&A. Froggie's points pretty well coincide with mine, although I neither believe nor disbelieve in human-created global warming. i am like that about most things, and I suspect that a lot of the problems in this debate relate to individual philosophies and personalities . I prefer to operate on the basis of probability, and historical experience. So far science hasn't been good at getting future scenarios right. I am also disturbed by the alacrity with which non-scientists oversimplify and distort facts, and then assume that some things are given then use intimidation and ridicule to suppress debate.

I would be a more convinced if I had a satisfactory explanation of what caused previous cold spells and warm spells, including recent ones , and why such a small amount carbon dioxide can have such an enormous effect. I also wonder if there is so much uncertainty about the extent of the greenhouse effect, PLUS the possibility of a European ice age caused by the disruption of the golf stream, PLUS controversy about when global warming will resume in earnest after plateauing out. It seems people are making things up as they go along. . I also wonder whether clouds have really been fully included in the models
But getting back to personal philosophies, I suspect the twain shall never meet with me and Sams or Bugsy. I don't care how many clever people say what is going to happen, I stick with William: "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." We just don't know what they are. I'm happy to accept that Sams and Bugsy have their own opinions, I just think they should respect others'. If they say that's not appropriate in times of "emergency" .. which they seeem to be ... then my fears of fascsim are well-grounded, whatever Wikkipedia says.
Please note: there is no ridicule or name-calling in this post,. I request you to show the same restraint. I am NOT calling anyone fascists. fascism is a proclivity within all of us.

Then we're agreed. You can all believe what you like and we won't send any of your children to re-education camps. The scientists will continue to advise the politicians on what the science says, the politicians can make policy accordingly and the bloggers can do whatever they want to do, which is mainly fill up the internet with useless opinions (yes, I am under no illusions that my opinions are actually useless, at least when written on the internet). The fact that the policy makers do not consult you personally when making decisions, does not make it fascism.

And then in 40 years time, when our grandchildren ask us we can tell them what we did. Will you be proud to tell them?

Sams: "No there aren't, far from it. There are a very small number - of those, almost all are linked to the fossil-fuel industry, and almost none in the climate science field".

Ever heard of Bill Kinninmonth? He's neither a tool of the "fossil-fuel industry nor is he outside the climate field, having been director of the National Climate Centre for some years.

There are others, all from the climate or related sciences:
Lindzen, Landsea, Wingham, Kirkby, Dyson, Solanki, Tsonis, Leroux, Christy, Jaworowski, Carter, Gray, Bryson, Segalstad, Svensmark, Abdussamatov, Ollier, Michaels, Motl, Soon and McKitrick.

So much for your "tiny minority" argument.

Q&A, your effort at placation is admirable. Disappointing that Sams has already sabotaged your efforts. Of course, sabotage comes from the French sabot, a heavy wooden shoe that disgruntled workers used to hinder production. Although, another argument goes that, when others started wearing leather shoes, 'saboteurs' were simply considered to be less productive. Either is applicable to Sams. So as for your suggestion to step into his shoes, thanks but no thanks. I imagine they are cracked, painfully uncomfortable and caked in mud. Dare I say he persists in 'clogging' up this site.

I am sure you are a skilled and intelligent scientist. You allude to the Nobel that awaits the scientist who disproves AGW, at least as the primary driver of climate change. Could you be overlooking an opportunity or a calling? Not that I doubt your convictions regarding the current orthodoxy, or that a Nobel is the sole aim, but that, as I'm sure you know, some of the great scientific discoveries have happened almost by accident while researchers were looking elsewhere. But they had to have the open mind to recognise what they had stumbled upon. I hope you keep better company in your professional work than here, as I fear someone like Sams is as likely to sabotage your progress as he does everything else. I wish you well in your work.

That said, thought I acknowledge the gesture, your opening questions have a whiff of The Inquisition about them (which nobody expected!)like:

Crock: what'll it take to make you see The Truth?
Brother Sams: how can we make the heathens see The Truth?

Is thumb screws the answer to both?

So though I'd like to add to your questions, I figure I'll just continue in my own shoes here as is - I thought your gesture somewhat fanciful and Sams has proved me correct (which everybody expected!)

Sams: "As a [forum] discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"It just approaches faster re holocaust denial." fungochumley's law

Great article, Mark.

viking13: "So much for your "tiny minority" argument."

Even if this list was valid - see below - this would still be a minuscule fraction of a percent of scientists in the world in related fields.
There are more listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus, but they are still a tiny fraction who are given disproportionate air time.

Addressing your list:

William Kininmonth - independent climatologist (self-described)
SourceWatch: "His only listed qualification is 'Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute', but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for 'Kininmonth, William Robert', and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia."

Richard Lindzen - a climate scientist, "Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen

Chris Landsea - atmospheric scientist - not an AGW denier - disputes effects on hurricane intensity

Duncan Wingham - climate scientist - not a AGW denier - disputes intensity of effects on Antarctica

Jasper Kirkby - experimental particle physicist - investigating whether cosmic rays have an effect on our climate - theory misused by deniers

Freeman Dyson - 85 year-old nuclear physicist

Sam Solanki - not an AGW denier

Anastasios Tsonis - mathematician - no info yet

Marcel Leroux - deceased climatologist

John Christy - atmospheric scientist

Zbigniew Jaworowski - Polish atomic physicist; also famous for claiming that leaded petrol isn't bad for you

Bob Carter - marine geologist - does not publish in climate journals

Vincent Gray - 86 year-old retired NZ coal chemist

Reid Bryson - deceased atmospheric scientist

Tom Segalstad - Norwegian geologist

Henrik Svensmark - physicist - another cosmic ray theorist

Khabibullo Abdusamatov - russian astrophysicist

Cliff Ollier - geologist - not a AGW denier, disputes icecaps melt rates

Patrick Michaels - climatologist - funded by fossil-fuel industry; in the past he predicted CFCs wouldn't cause ozone thinning over the poles

Luboš Motl - theoretical physicist (black holes and similar) - has stated that AGW supprters should "quarantined" and "euthanased"

Willie Soon - astrophysicist - research was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute

Ross McKitrick - economist!

Sams has been burning the midnight oil at wiki and sourcewatch - No. 1 choice for the 'who can I trust?' paranoid. Well, certainly not Sams. Just a couple of deliberate or negligent omissions from his "research" for starters.

William Kininmonth - Bureau of Meteorology for 38 years, 12 as Head of the National Climate Centre. For some tributes to him on his retirement, see here:

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/1442.html

Richard Lindzen - Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.

Envy isn't a virtue, Sams - identity, position and qualifications unknown.

fungochumley: "Just a couple of deliberate or negligent omissions from his "research" for starters."

Not really, just sticking to the salient points to keep within the word limit.

fungochumley: "Envy isn't a virtue, Sams - identity, position and qualifications unknown."

But I'm sure you find ignorance is bliss, fungochumley (identity, position, qualifications and number of fake aliases unknown).

"Not really"?

Only Sams could regard a 38 year career in meteorology and an MIT Professor's qualifications as not salient when making ad hominem attacks. I don't engage in this, choosing to argue the facts over the man, so my "fake alias" (nice tautology - what is a genuine one?) is irrelevant, a luxury, which as I have argued previously, you have denied yourself through your ad hominem logic.

Q&A: You ask Sams, "what can all the academies of science you list do to better inform people of the science and risks associated with anthropogenic global warming?"

An odd person to ask, as honesty is a good place to start.

Poor old Sams. It seems he has invested his whole being into the AGW meme, such a believer he is, so an attack on his beloved theory is seen as an attack on himself.

So he has to ignore all points of fact or logic in order to keep himself together.

No doubt he will say the same about me.

How sad it is that this issue is so divisive.

No-one is denying that the climate changes, Sams. Just that man's input is relatively minor, and doesn't justify the impoverishment of the battlers to the profit of people like Al Gore.

i think Froggie's point about the battlers has to be addressed, Sams. especially the billions of battlers who aren't "emitting" at even a fraction of the rate that we are. How do you propose they should get a decent standard of living, or should they go on living a simple agrarian life and die young for our sake?

If if is getting warmer, don't we have to address that, regardless of the reason? Don't we really have to look at ways that the world can use MORE power for MORE people, who may need technological power-driven solutions for a hotter world? Or even a colder one, if the ice age cometh on account of the Gulf Stream stuffing up? Or just a plain old world with more people in it?

Bugsy: "And then in 40 years time, when our grandchildren ask us we can tell them what we did. Will you be proud to tell them?" That's an interesting question because we've been talking about what we believe, not what we do! I've already told you I'm into having an even better world I'd like to know what you Bugsy, and you, Sams, think about nuclear power in that regard. I am open to the idea that we may need it. that we may need more of it, AGW or not. And Bugsy, what SHOULD I do so I can feel proud to tell them? Just believe?

Well Crock, when they ask, what will you tell them? It's up to you man. Depending on what you think may happen you can tell them, "well I turned out the lights and rode my bike and made sure I didn't use too much water (or at least not more than the average) and wrote profusely on the internet that non-fossil fuel power sources should be used more widely."

However, I get the feeling that you hope you won't have to explain what you did at all, that you hope that nothing's wrong. That you hope that we didn't cause anything of what they will be experiencing. Maybe they won't be experiencing what the scientists are modeling. You could say "Well, we didn't believe that humans caused the warming, and anyway it required a great amount of political will that just wasn't possible, because we believed that the socialists/fascists/commies/lefties/greenwashers/[insert derogatory term of choice here] were behind that kind of collectivist thinking."

But of course, you may not have to answer. You are merely making sure that we don't......what exactly are you making sure we don't do exactly? Impoverish ourselves?

Look I hope that everything you talked about, more power for more people (without worrying about the ecological cost or how much we may contribute to that) is the answer, I really do, then I will be a fool (not the only one of course). But I don't just make my plans on hope.

"the billions of battlers who aren't "emitting" at even a fraction of the rate that we are. How do you propose they should get a decent standard of living, or should they go on living a simple agrarian life and die young for our sake?"

By developing our tech so that "decent standard of living" doesn't equate a lot of CO2 emissions. Having visited Ethiopian for a short time, and having a daughter adopted from there, I can assure you that I am well aware of the issues. What *will* affect them to a large extent if we don't act is the impact of climate change on their food supply, which is already notoriously prone to climate variability.

"By developing our tech so that "decent standard of living" doesn't equate a lot of CO2 emissions."

I still don't agree that CO2 emissions are a problem, but there is one "tech" that doesn't equate a lot of CO2 emissions- nuclear. The greens of course won't have a bar of it, even though it has been proven to be safe and clean, notwithstanding Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Certainly a lot cleaner than using coal at present, although Vattenfall say that CCS can help in this regard:

http://www.vattenfall.com/www/vf_com/vf_com/370103press/1344388css-p/index.jsp

Of course, the greens are sceptical about this technology:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/more-carbon-capture-at-german-coal-plants.php

So it seems their answer is more wind turbines or solar power, which currently costs two or three times more than fossil fuels and are not as effective. Maybe advances in technology will improve them.

As a matter of interest, here is yet another "climate changing" hypothesis.

http://www.lmtg.obs-mip.fr/index.php?option=com_lmtg_myhomepage&lmtg_subject=admin&lmtg_item=24

Thanks Bugsy. Scientists can be pretty clever when it comes to practical solutions based on economic imperatives. Witness more fuel-efficient cars, more effective light bulbs, solar panels. etc.

ECOnomy and ECOlogy should be seen as friends, not ideological opponents. I would not for a moment think that "more power for more people (without worrying about the ecological cost or how much we may contribute to that) is the answer". I don't think we should tolerate smog, lead poisoning , acid rain, and any other nasties such as Chernobyl-style events. I also believe we should constantly strive to create less waste, and find ways to reuse our waste, and that we should be working hard to create genuinely sustainable sources of water and power. All these are imperatives for an overpopulated world .... as is the need to acknowledge that most of the world needs more power.

I keep telling my AGW-endoctrinated kids to turn off THEIR lights because I believe these things. But I DON"T think we should be imbuing our children with fear, pessimism and despair. At the moment I am in the process of converting our Alice Springs back yard into a food source, because I do think we need to rethink our incredibly wasteful food production policies. If that all sounds like the precautionary principle, well it’s not, although I could be convinced of it . I am concerned that if we act on the basis that AGW is an indisputable fact, people will abandon a commonsense approach to the environment if it is shown to be wrong. So if there is a way we could move forward on that basis, instead of having to act as if we totally believe in something which is fundamentally unproven, I would be for all that.

The policies addressing AGW are essentially dealing with efficiencies in technology and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. What you and many other people fail to understand is that the great majority of scientific theories are essentially unproven, but this is not to say that they don't have evidence supporting them. AGW has a LOT of evidence supporting it. This evidence has been reviewed by a lot of top level scientists with a great deal of integrity and knowledge of the field and found to require political action and cooperation if mitigation of potential catastrophe is to occur. This is essentially the point of Sams post that you had such trouble with -you though that it was a fallacious appeal to authority, but that is an error. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious and in this case it carries weight.

As for "imbuing our children fear, pessimism and despair", is that what you think this is all about? On the contrary, I see it as teaching them the consequences of profligacy, something that previous generations haven't had to deal with on such a scale. I actually think that the nuclear scares of the Cold War scared the bejeezus out of people much more than this problem and so does terrorism today and thats only because they could recognise the immediacy and nature of the threat. Make no mistake, the threat is real, and by its very nature if you aren't a part of the solution then you are a part of the problem. Think about it carefully.

I’m seriously worried about the “consequences of profligacy” argument. As Ian McEwan has pointed out it really makes you question the motivations behind what people are thinking and seeing: very much like a variation on the guy with the placard in the cartoon , “the end is nigh”. And hence the vociferousness and strange glee with which people celebrate any perceived evidence that the end may be nigh. “Repent, Crock!” is what I’m hearing.

Unfortunately, “a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.”

Of course you will say the same applies to me. But
I DIDN”T have trouble with Sams’ argument. I wasn’t talking about “fallacious appeal to authority”, I was talking about ANY appeal to authority. Stubbornly and by your view irrationally, I actually need more to convince me than that. I also understand perfectly the difference between proof and evidence. I just think this particular evidence is way too circumstantial.

However, you seem to be ignoring what I’m saying about the fact that I AM taking action, but from a broader basis than simply the possibility that AGW does exist. There are lots of things that impel us to take action at all sorts of levels. Family, local, regional, national etc. GW, A or not, is just one.

Meanwhile, neither you nor SAMS has answered anyone’s questions about nuclear power and your attitudes towards it. One thing we do seem to agree on is that we need to find alternative sources of power that are sustainable.

1. Is nuclear one of those?
2. Since you believe the problems are urgent, what is your urgent solution to meeting the power needs of the world?

I’ve been busy with other things but have watched from the sideline – interesting comments indeed. Thanks to those who specifically replied.

Froggie
From your perspective, I asked “what will it take for you to believe the scientific orthodoxy of AGW?” Not why you “don’t” believe in it.

Anyway, your reasons have been addressed before, here and elsewhere – should they be revisited again for clarification on OLO? Possibly, but it would save a lot of time, frustration (on all sides) and effort if people who are really interested in ‘climate change,’ go to the primary sources – OLO is just an ‘Opinion’ forum.

Sams
I thought it would have been constructive for you to engage with my question - if only for the benefit of others.

Clearly, the public debate is important, notwithstanding the policy and decision makers all over the planet know we have a problem and a certain amount of time to deal with it. It would help things enormously if the general public were better informed, this is not happening. Indeed, there are forces out there that deliberately misrepresent and distort the science for their own agenda.

fungochumley
Thanks for your comments.
I obviously was not clear. What I meant in others stepping into Sams’ shoes (for example) was for you (for example) to answer the question I posed to Sams: “what can all the academies of science Sams lists, do ... to better inform people of the science and risks associated with AGW?

Ad homs fly both ways in the blogosphere, no one is immune. This does not generally happen in scientific fora.

Crock

Thanks for really engaging. OLO is awash with GW stuff, but you should look to other sites for more scientific rationale.

I’m also a fan of WS ... Hamlet a favourite. Whilst science is complex, we do know a lot and technology is getting better all the time.

Contrary to one of your other statements, when we look at the GCM’s and compare them to the observations, the ‘hindcasts’ are really very good. What I think you confuse is climate prediction and climate projection.

GCM’s cannot predict the future climate, but they can picture a future climate given certain scenarios (within tolerances of course). What those scenarios are (or turn out to be) really depend on what we choose to do now, at least in the short term.

To your last post – nuclear power has to be a solution – and it is, with many countries in the world. I am particularly optimistic in 4th Gen or fast breeder reactors. I don’t think we need them in Australia, yet. Check out this link, starting half way down page 6.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080804_TripReport.pdf

I would be interested in your opinion on Hansen’s “Trip Report”.

Anyway, you raise a lot of questions and issues, too much to cover on this thread about sun-spots.

Professor Brook’s current thread can bring it back to topic. His web blog can also answer many of the questions you raise, or at least point you to them.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/14/what-if-the-sun-got-stuck/

Another really good site is

http://www.realclimate.org/

For alternative views and closer to home, try

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

There are others.

Q & A,
I don't think you realise I was trying to help answer your question. You say, Houston we have a problem. I think you have two. The first is Sams. The second is you are asking the first for the solution.

So, in answer to “what can all the academies of science do to better inform people of the science and risks associated with AGW?", communicate info honestly and reasonably, and respond to valid questions.

Having now read your response to IanC on Joliffe here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7870

I feel I am cutting you a lot of slack. He raised a reasonable, relevant, valid and, unfortunately for you, inconvenient comment from him. I saw no sign of a dummy spit or of hate. It was you who took it personally and fired back uncalled for defensive insults, and then projected your dummy spit onto him. That's not science, that's childish. Like when Sams gets caught and asked if he had his hand in the cookie jar above and replies "not really".

My point is, THAT is not a better way to inform people.

The curious question is this. If 'deniers' are such a miniscule minority of 'flat-earth' kooks, why are Sams et al so defensive. The 'consensus' is the dominant view, people and businesses are on board, govts are taking action (though, of course, not enough for Greenpeace and the Aust Youth Climate Coalition) so why so threatened? I don't feel the need to hang around flat earth websites arguing with them.

Thanks for the link Froggie. I'm glad some are still focussing on other large scale stuff which has determined climate since the earth was born.

The important point is fungo, while deniers are definitely in the minority, they are only really seem to be in tiny minority in scientific circles. Political action requires a good majority of regular people to work in a democracy.

But you raise a good point, this is only an opinion site, if you want really good information, I would suggest you won't find all that much here as most of the climate articles are written by journalists or economists.

And Crock, I find it really interesting that you can be sceptical of AGW on one hand and seriously push nuclear on the other as some sort of solution to a problem you don't believe exists.

Nuclear may be a part of the solution, especially in places like China, USA, Europe etc, as they already have infrastructure and eduction programs for technicians to run them. The one thing I really worry about is how many nuclear technicians globally will need to be trained and how much will that cost us? The labour market in such a highly skilled area globally will go through the roof. China, USA etc. have nuclear navies that supply a steady stream of trained recruits, what will we do? Recruit from overseas? Will the reactors be ready in time? Can't we reduce our emissions in the short term at least?

And Crock, to further the idea of imbuing our kids with fear and pessimism, I reckon that a lot the people that argue we can't do anything about it anyway and that we should not spend money on preventing anything but on building "lifeboats" or just dealing with it are the true pessimists.

"...I find it really interesting that you can be sceptical of AGW on one hand and seriously push nuclear on the other as some sort of solution to a problem you don't believe exists."

I'm sceptical of AGW and a supporter of nuclear power. The reason? I'd like to see our coal turned into auto fuel using Fischer-Tropsch technology like that in RSA's Sasol plant, and while I doubt that pollution from coal-fired power stations is responsible for GW, it is most certainly responsible for air pollution. So, I'd like for this country to be able to thumb our noses at the Arabs, make high quality fuel for motor vehicles from an abundant resource, and make electric power from another abundant resource, namely uranium.

Sams,thanks for answering some of my questions, sort of. But a guy like you who apparently likes to get defintions and fine points right really ought to note the difference between "scepticism" and "denial".

I do get a bit weary of saying the same thing over and over again. So I'll say it in a different way, not because I think what i think is important to anyone but me, but because I think it may present to you some of the more subtle varieties of opinion other than for or against.

I don't know if AGW is happening.

I do think the world needs more power.

I would prefer that it were sustainable and/or non-polluting.

I am happy if we can cover all bases without resorting to hair shirts.
I am willing to move forward on that basis.
I am not willing to support an argument of which I honestly am yet unconvinced ( NOTE, NOT disbelieving or denying) simply because people think that the masses have to be scared shitless before they will support change.

I will continue to advocate non-polluting power sources sustainable when possible.

I admit that I do fervently hope that AGW is not happening. I am willing to be convinced that it is.

I am not and never have stated that i am a supporter of nuclear power, merely that it needs to be considered without the baby boomer baggage, although as I unpack my own, I am leaning in that direction, but not because of AGW.

Thanks Q and A for those resources, and for making a real effort to follow the thread of my argument.

fungochumley: "Only Sams could regard a 38 year career in meteorology and an MIT Professor's qualifications as not salient"

fungochumley: "That's not science, that's childish. Like when Sams gets caught and asked if he had his hand in the cookie jar above and replies "not really"."

Firstly, Mr Kininmonth is not even an scientist. He has not published a single article on climate change in peer-reviewed science journals.

Secondly, the man has registered as sole tradership with the trading name "Australasian Climate Research Institute" and goes around calling himself "The Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute.

http://www.abr.business.gov.au//abnDetails.aspx?ABN=81287283607

See his book for example:

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Natural-William-Kininmonth/dp/0906522269

"About the Author William Kininmonth is the director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute"

I see he has added a review for his own book on that very page:

"This book gives a readable scientific account of the climate we live in. If global warming and other forms of climate change are a "natural" hazard, shouldn't we be even more worried about its consquences? A great read!"

Give me a break.

This is the calibre of person that deniers are putting up as "scientists" against climate change.

Fungochumley

You imply scientific institutions do NOT “communicate information honestly and reasonably, and respond to valid questions”. Be constructive; tell us how they should explain the science – e.g. info nights, public seminars, what/when/how?

Are the IPCC dishonest too? Are they engaged in disinformation?

Re: Professor Jolliffe and Tamino

I was spit'n-chips with Castles’ post because he didn’t link to the actual dialogue between Jolliffe and Tamino. Castles didn’t go to the primary source (hardly scientific) but preferred Climate Audit. Others reading (you for example) would have taken Professor Jolliffe and Tamino (as well as Castles’ comments) out of context – your response is proof.

So, I would say Castles isn’t helping to inform people – he was/is distorting and misrepresenting what actually occurred. Castles doesn’t even take up the PCA discussion with Jolliffe or Tamino.

In other words, Castles is huffn-‘n’-puffn red herrings.

Here’s what Professor Jolliffe said in Tamino’s thread:

“We do agree with Dr. Mann on one key point: that MBH98/99 was not the only evidence of global warming. As we said in our report, “In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change.

The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature. We certainly agree that modern global warming is real. We have never disputed this point. We think it is time to put the “hockey stick” controversy behind us and move on.

If there now are people out there claiming that my first post undermines the whole global warming argument, tell me where and I’ll refute this misrepresentation as well.

[I am tempted to throw Castles (and Bob Carter) his way, but neither Castles (nor Bob Carter) submit papers now – ever wondered why not?]

Almost any decent statistical model-fitting will give the upward trend at the end of the series, but more importantly there are all the climate models, based mainly on physics rather than statistics, that provide convincing evidence of climate change and the reasons for it ...”

Jolliffe’s full response:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/open-thread-5-2/#comment-22080

I hope this helps put things in perspective.

Just correcting a typo I spotted:

I wrote:

"Secondly, the man has registered as sole tradership with the trading name "Australasian Climate Research Institute" and goes around calling himself "The Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute."

I meant to write:

"Secondly, the man has registered as sole tradership with the trading name "Australasian Climate Research" and goes around calling himself "The Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute."

i.e. the name of the sole tradership doesn't contain the word "Institute" (such a name probably can't be registered with the ABR as a sole tradership) because it would be deemed deceptive.

Is this the same William Kininmonth we are talking about Sams?

I think you should learn some respect, instead of vilifying a man whose career in climatology has been so lauded.

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/1442.html

Bill Kininmonth, head of the National Climate Centre since 1986, retired on January 6 after 38 years with the Bureau. He oversaw modernisation of the climate databank and development of our first seasonal outlooks during a remarkable era that placed global climate issues on the front burner.

The farewell tributes poured in from home and away, Songs were sung, many speakers heard.

'An eminent climatologist and world authority,' Acting Director Doug Gauntlett told the audience, 'known for forthright and honest advice during long and dedicated service'.

This is an endless debate in comments, as there is no Answer to grasp of course.
Where this could have gone is.
" Stop using fossil fuels"
And building solar power stations to replace fossil and nuclear and every other method of human manipulation of nature that is doing irreversable harm to the planet and its inhabitants.

Humans are the insane species. there is no doubt about that, given that they have foolishly invented ' intelligence' and gods to measure themself to other species, the only chance is for a mass human extinction and soon.

"Is this the same William Kininmonth we are talking about Sams?"

Sams has made himself look even more stupid than usual by "rubbishing the opposition". It's OK in his (or her) book to post huge lists of AGW theory supports, yet a person of the stature of Bill Kininmonth "isn't a scientist"! It's pathetic really.

Let's recap:

Froggie: "There are a lot of scientists, some in the climate field, who don't agree with the theory [of AGW]"

Sams: "No there aren't, far from it."

viking13: "Ever heard of Bill Kinninmonth?"

viking13 then presents rag tag list of about a dozen apparently of "others, all from the climate or related sciences" most of whom I subsequently show are not.

Personally I think trying to pass off economists, octogenarian retired coal chemists and people that have never written a peer-reviewed science paper in their lives as scientists "all from the climate or related sciences" is dishonest.

Q & A,

I'm glad you've taken ownership, as they say, of your own dummy/chip spit. I have read Joliffe and accept his view. He posted also to CA so I think your comment about primary sources (esp. in the context of the blogosphere is questionable and pedantic - that is what you spat chips at!) If, as he says, people are using it to undermine the whole AGW edifice, he is free to respond to that to. I haven't seen it, and certainly not in IanC's post. Joliffe believed tamino had misrepresented him. It is you who extrapolates beyond what what was written and demonizes those who are engaging in reasonable process.

I find it amusing that the line now seems to be stop focussing so much on the Holy Stick! It doesn't matter, move on. It was the IPCC who picked it up almost overnight and promoted it with gusto. Now that it has been discredited through the efforts of 'non-peers' - would it have happened without them? - instead of acknowledging that as good progressive science, they see it as people trying to undermine their whole world. Perhaps this answers your question on my view of IPCC process - they are so defensive toward people outside their milieu that they demonize people and create enemies out of people who should be welcomed as helping work towards a better understanding of what is happening. (Incidentally, it was the Castles-Henderson critique I believe that provided an early example of this.) Perhaps it is fanciful, but I believe that is how good science should work. I'm on holidays for two weeks now. As I said, I wish you well in your work. But I don't think you need to have such animosity to those who are helping keep the science honest.

Sams, blah blah blah.

Thanks fungochumley.

I agree, science is very pedantic, we have to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's ad nauseum. No wonder we just want to do our job and not get involved in public discussion.

Sure there is debate in the science community - look at the Jolliffe/Tamino discussion over the nuances of PCA. Like Jolliffe said, it does not negate the fact that the planet is warming and that human activity plays a fundamental part in that.

As far as the MBH98/99 'hockey stick' goes - McIntyre's revelation made negligible impact to global mean temperatures and only marginal adjustments to the contiguous USA temperatures - contrary to what many 'non-believers' would have us believe. However, I agree - because of his efforts, adjustments were made.

Anyway, you must realise that there are many 'other hockey sticks', from other proxy reconstructions - that is why the original 1998 Mann 'stick' is not critical anymore - the science has moved on, Jolliffe concurs.

I think you misjudge me, but no matter. I encourage efforts to critique the theory of AGW, but it must be done in the proper way - not in the populist media. If critiques are sound, rigorous and robust - they will prevail.

Unfortunately, no 'contrarian' work has stood up to this review process - time will tell. And most certainly, rants and blusters by once-upon-a-time scientists who are not prepared to publish their critiques in the proper fora deserve to be exposed for what they are - just opinion.

As to the IPCC, they don't do the research, they just review the 1000's of scientific papers and produce the reports. Maybe you could consider how this could be done better? It just amazes me how all those who don't believe this stuff just want to 'dump' on the IPCC - they're only messengers after all.

Enjoy you holiday.

You mean like Sams. I think the IPCC have invited a lot of the 'dumping', are more than messengers, and who decides what is the appropriate avenue? There is power involved, and when they are blinkered and resistant to critique, it is not suprising that scientists who are not toeing the line have to publish elsewhere. And I think some critiques have prevailed. Remember, anyone who so much as questioned the Holy Stick (and I mean Mann's) was all but crucified by the establishment.

Thank you. I will enjoy my holiday. I'm going where it's warm.

Q & A "once-upon-a-time scientists" and Sams- "octogenarian retired coal chemists"

These are men who have spent their entire lives in the cause of science. They disagree with the theory of AGW, and its hysterical acolytes.. They are not the only ones, plenty of younger scientists agree with them.

Has it occured to you that they may be totally aware of the current political situation in and around the funding of the organisations they once belonged to? Could that explain why they don't bother to gate-crash the "Peer Review" party? They know it is a club that only accepts the scientific orthodoxy.

You must be both getting really desperate to try to disparage people of their calibre.

Since when was age relevant to scientific thought?

Maybe in computer science though- now there's a thought. After all, AGW is totally built on "computer modelling". GIGO as I said before.

These men were doing science probably before you were doing your two times table.

You must both be so desperate at seeing your beloved AGW theory getting poked so full of holes, that this disrespect does not bother you at all.

Fungochumley, in all sincerity, I really meant enjoy your holiday. I am sorry you have taken it the wrong way.

Froggie, you entirely miss the point, again.

My last post here.

Froggie: "seeing your beloved AGW theory"

The last resort of a bigoted arguer. I see the same from the pro-life people saying that pro-choice people "love abortion". I agree with Q&A, this thread is past its use-by date.

Q & A,
Thank you, I did accept your wishes as sincere. Don't understand how you thought I hadn't. Cheers.