Too much of the article is about implying and suggesting: referring to the scientific understanding of climate as an orthodoxy turns the very good indicator that the science is right - most results in agreement - into an implication that there's a kind of conspiracy to suppress disagreement. All it takes is one word misapplied. The authors use it that way. To me that implies and suggests the authors are climate science denialists. IanC, I note that you use the same suggestive terminology.

There is no evidence that any sound science gets suppressed (loudly diasagreed with sometimes, sure), but when specific criticisms don't stand up to scientific scrutiny - after true scepticism has been professionally applied - but still get endlessly repeated as if real, scientifically valid, and "suppressed" for their conclusions rather than lack of merit... that deserves the label denialism. It's been denialists falsely naming what they do as "scepticism" that has led to the term "sceptic" being used derisively. A shame maybe, but then the term has been used loosely all around.

No Ken Fabos, I did NOT use that ‘suggestive terminology’ and I haven’t labelled anyone a climate science denialist. I illustrated the emptiness of this offensive label by pointing out that Bjorn Lomborg ACCEPTED the IPCC science but was still likened to a Holocaust denier in a review published in Nature

Ken, that’s right. It’s important to distinguish the difference between being ‘alarmist’ and publishing the science that truly is alarming. Indeed, since the preparation of the AR4, more research has been produced that shows we are trending at the high end of the IPCC projections. How much more evidence is required?

Certainly, having a debate over the use of terms ‘alarmist, ‘denialist’ or sceptic does not engender any sense of urgency (which is clearly required) but rather, can be seen as a tactic to delay action – for whatever reason.

I would have preferred IanC address the 3 questions put to him. Seems to have gone down like a lead shot.

Q & A,

I'm not sure that my answers to your questions will be of much help to you, but here they are:

(1) I don't know what Supreme Court Judge Mackenzie said in his assessment, and it's not on my reading list.

(2) I'm not a political scientist and can't make an informed speculation about how Copenhagen will play out. I've seen reports that Obama may appoint Al Gore as the US climate change supremo. If that happens, I'd worry that Copenhagen will be an even bigger failure than Kyoto. But the experts may disagree and I'll await their assessment.

(3) I don't see any obstacle to the meeting of economics and climate change science. As noted above, I was part of the team of scientists and economists that produced a 'dual critique' of the Stern Review, and an all-party Committee of the House of Lords produced a unanimous report after taking evidence from a number of leading economists and climate scientists.

IanC

Lomborg is reported as saying: "Of course, we shouldn't ignore global warming. But instead of trying to cut CO2 emissions, we should focus on dramatically increasing the funding into energy research and development.

"If the price of renewable energy dropped below the cost of fossil fuels by mid-century, everyone - including China and India - would switch to the greener alternatives."

"Mid century?" Is he suggesting that we do nothing until mid-century? In the meantime, it's business as usual?

Lomborg who has an MA in political science, optimistically advised in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," published in 1998, that he finds no indication of widespread deforestation, and notes that even the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978 and that 'basically, our forests are not under threat and that most of the really serious problems have been dealt with.'

1978? Who could trust this man with the task of forward planning?

By 2006, the Amazon forest was smaller by 700,000 square miles than in 1970.

Amazon destruction jumped 228 percent in August this year, when compared to the same month a year ago, according to a report from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research. About 300 square miles of the Amazon was destroyed last month, compared to 90 square miles in August 2007.

"This paper concentrates on food and hunger, deforestation, air pollution and climate change and finds that Lomborg's analysis suffers from several problems, including selective use of data, over-simplification of issues, posing the wrong questions and lack of objectivity in his quest for optimistic trends.

"Ironically Lomborg makes the same errors as those he criticises:"

http://www.res.org.uk/journals/abstracts.asp?ref=0013-0133&vid=113&iid=488&aid=813 (Matthew A. Cole Department of Economics University of Birmingham

Yes Ian, not much help ... but thanks for your response. We choose where to cast our pearls.

1. Mackenzie said of Bob Carter’s submission:

“Had either of the following two years been selected as the starting point, and the result for 1998 been treated as an aberrant spike (remember its El Nino), the period to 2006 would have demonstrated an increase over that period larger than the alleged cooling relied on by the President” (in making the initial ruling).”

This from someone who is not familiar with signal to noise ratios, the difference between climate and weather, or the WMO 30 year climate change trend analyses.

I asked if you could put your statistician’s hat on and comment. You chose not to.

Notwithstanding copious citations and foot-notes, the judge rejected Carter’s flirtation with statistics. Yet Carter continually asserts that global warming stopped in 1998, despite the fact that 11 of the last 13 years have been the hottest in recorded history and that the rate of warming over the last 150 years has not been experienced since man has stepped on this earth.

2. I know you are not a political scientist, but I asked if you could put your economics hat on. Ian, you are a respected and well credentialed contributor to OLO to at least give an informed opinion – your comments would be useful, but they are shallow. Again your choice.

Stern, Garnaut and all political and business leaders know too well the science – yet you have serious critiques. It is the current economic paradigm that has failed our society, not the science.

Btw, I would also have concerns if Gore is appointed ‘climate change supremo’.

3. I am encouraged by your response. However, I have issues when I read things like this:

http://newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-skeptics

Aitken is a political scientist and he singles out you and Bob Carter for special acknowledgment – noting that you and Bob Carter are associated with "denialists" and "sceptics" – subject of the current article.