"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.