bb, you pretend to seek "evidence of specific charges" as if sitting here in scientific judgement over scientists' political dissent around AGW. That's pompous, and contextually and argumentatively dishonest, because I quoted those three scientists to prove emphatically that anti-AGW science does exist against fraudulent claims of some "consensus" ("there is no debate", "the science says", etc.). By contrast, your very demand seeks to shift attention from straightforward scrutiny of your own fraudulent claims and implications about "AGW consensus" and "an entire profession" (scientists).

Modern definitions of "denial" imply pejorative meaning e.g., "Psychol. an unconscious thought process whereby one allays anxiety by refusing to acknowledge...existence of certain unpleasant aspects of external reality or of one's thoughts, feelings, etc.: now often in the phrase 'in denial'." Again, for you to deny such clearly pejorative current meaning in this context confirms again your dishonesty here. If an old scientific theory (AGW) is already discredited, but pro-AGW scientists and supporters persist with it as if still valid, then those people deserve the pejoratives here i.e., as "frauds" or, at least, as just victims of that deception.

Unlike your claimed precedents of "scientific fiction", Kininmonth obviously did not refer to a single, isolated scientific theory in his relatively recent comment describing AGW as "a dangerous fiction". AGW is far beyond one very early, discredited theory - anthropogenic CO2 increase as cause for planetary warming - and into vast convolutions and permutations of that early theory in efforts to sustain the unsustainable. Such AGW contrivances as "feedback loops" are like ingestion of very old regurgitation. Ice core data proved unambiguously that earth's warming increased CO2 emission, not the other way around - a no-brainer given living organisms' basic perspiration processes in that respect.

We could refer also to past scientific frauds like Descartes' vortices and "effluvium", or Newton's alchemy and various (failed) plagiarisms, but all these are properly the stuff of mysticism, not science - or mere poses of exclusive and esoteric sophistication and certain social connections. You seem quite taken with mysticism and argumentative conjuring tricks yourself: perhaps you're "just built that way" too?

hoo boy! where to begin ...

m-l:

1) you quote one or more guys charging fraud. i have absolutely no idea why you think it is "pompous" or "argumentatively dishonest" to attempt to find out exactly what this charges means and whether there's any substance to the charge.

2) you quote "there is no debate" and "the science says" and "agw consensus". not only did i not write any of this, i wrote nothing which even remotely implied such a stance.

so, you blatantly and wholly misrepresent me, manufacturing pseudo-quotes to help. and then you see fit to lecture me on my "fraudulent claims and implications"? well played, sir, well played!

3) i explained to you the meaning i intended with "denial scientists" and i acknowledged, twice, that the expression was not ideal. i promise to use whatever group term you wish. just, for christ's sake, please stop bitching.

4) i explained to you both my understanding of the word "fiction", and why it was irrelevant here what Kinimonth meant by the word. yes, i know you don't get it. i'll live with the disappointment.

mil-observer, i'd love to argue with you further ...... no, that's a lie. i've had all that i can stomach. just one last word of advice: look up the definition of "fraud". if you're ever visited by descartes' ghost, he's gonna be pissed.

now, please excuse me. it's late, and i have stuff to do back on planet earth.

bb, your anecdote about scientists you have talked to, and the government's supposedly "watered-down" treatment of AGW fraudsters' predictions on warming effects, all betray your actual position on AGW - pretences and fake argumentation cannot hide that. Young's own dissent on this is a correct position, because he obviously identifies the deep corruption that has compromised science so widely. "Corruption" can be another term for "fraud", and Young's generalized attack is thereby warranted. You pretend to defend the innocent and sincere against unfair association, but your argumentation - and your anecdotal pro-AGW sleaze -are both here on record to reveal your own fraudulent positions and mere tactical method of "debate".

Several of my own quotes are on record here too, but obviously meant only to associate your actual pro-AGW sleaze with the regime of non-debate and stifling of uncompromised dissent. So you try yet again the trickery of calling some apparent technicality as "blatant misrepresentation". I made no such, but your insincerity now does just that: self-misrepresentation against your own stated anecdotal concerns about "scientists you know" (and my quote marks too)!

Garrett and Wong themselves use "denial" as simple pejorative (you did too, of course, but with a big dollop of sleaze a la "not that there's anything wrong with that").

Anyway, here's part of Young's Marohasy reference for a laugh, explaining our original meaning of FRAUD in this AGW context:

"...bankrupt merchant bankers, Lehman Brothers, invested heavily in the politics of climate change. The bank released two reports last year on the issue broadly embracing and promoting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Agenda including emissions trading.
...
On the issue of the Stern report and the associated controversy over discount rates, Lehman Brothers again come down on the side of those promoting immediate action against global warming backing “the correct ethical position” over what many would consider prudent economics.
The Lehman Brother’s report acknowledges the assistance of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and advisor to Al Gore."

Lehman, Hansen, and hedge fund owner Gore: swindlers and frauds

Q&A

"With all serious respect to the Koutsoyiannis et al paper: the authors do not appear to know very much about either the TAR or the AR4."

As a self outed scientist you seem to be seriously lacking in the intellectual skills one would normally associate with a discipline requiring rational thought.

First there was your immature and petulant outburst cum dummy spit on a previous thread.

Now you show that you dont read what is put in front of you and then have the temerity to suggest that others dont.

There is clear evidence that Koutsoyianis and his team do know their way around the IPCC documents etc, and there is a clear conclusion that is being made by them, namely that GCM's have no worthwhile skill.

You will also note that the date of his paper/presentation of 2008 is after the last IPCC assessment, so therefore it is new stuff.

Now as a practising scientit in some govt funded bolt hole somewhere, you know the drill. Go and write a paper for Peer Review in a journal of your choice, that shows that Koutsoyianis and team are wrong.

If you cant, then had back your degrees, and go and get a proper job.

If you do, I look forward to reading it.

You are right to raise the limitations of computer models, but linking the credit crash to climate modelling is stretching things a bit.
Without the models we would be totally in the dark as to why certain things are happening.
The scientists using theses models are *very* aware of their limitations! They know about over-fitting, they know their model does not have all the factors and chaos will make any "predictions" wrong. But that is not how the models are used. Thousands of model "runs" over various time periods using different real-world inputs *may* produce a result that can be published.
Both the anti-AGW brigade and the looney-Green factions annoy me as they both play fast and loose with the science. Lets leave the "what's happening" to professional scientists and then we can all argue the "what to do about it".
GW *is* happening, and is due in part to human CO2. The changes may affect entire countries and will occur faster than common sense would suggest.
BUT
We may have been heading into an ice age. Climate change *is* inevitable whether we initiate it or not. We may have rushed things a bit, but we would have had to face some climate change. We *might* have saved ourselves from global cooling, we might not. If this idea appeals, keep in mind we *might* be setting ourselves up for a runaway greenhouse effect and end up like Venus...
Pretty comforting, or scary depending on the scenario.
This is why we need un-political science. (Bush/Howard would punish funding based on results. IPC reports have so far been very conservative because no-one would believe the results! It took a major surprise in the form of ice shelves disintegrating before the fear allowed more dangerous predictions to be published.) We need science independent of business (think big tobacco science or "creation studies" institutes. They poison the published records with targeted publication)
Without the science free, we cannot make the correct political decisions. The common enemy is untruth, not GW or anti-GW.

Ozandy

Completely agree with the idealistic sentiment expressed.

In the real world of the how things are being handled right now however it will be very hard to achieve.

Too many barnacles of vested interest in the scientific fraternity, as well as everywhere else.

Too many examples of outright bias and incompetence,eg Mann, Hansen, Gore for starters.

Too many examples of where the IPCC has been less than honest.

Too many issues where the IPCC has conveniently over looked or treated very inadequately issues of relevance.

Too many jobs for the boys eg Garnaut and the UK version that preceded it under similar circumstances.

Too much blatant political involvement and shenanigans.

Too many quite inacceptable practices enabling those in priviledge position to make huge profits eg Gore.

Not enough oversight by the review arms of govts to verify that the processes are in accord with best practice standards etc.

Too many glaring holes in the so called scientific method for it to be sanctified as a reliable way of reporting on the outcomes of huge sums of public monies.

Its no wonder that parallels can be easily drawn between the Wall Street failures and the blind faith being placed on GCM's by the alarmanistas