Spindoc, it would help if you actually read the documents these 'journalists' report on. I would certainly agree with Prof Hulme, but you probably wouldn't if you actually read the document and not just snipped out-of-context bits.

These reporter/bloggers (it's so hard to tell what they are these days), are a prime example of why the IPCC was probably not as nuanced in its summaries and statements as it should have been. Comprehension of subtleties seems to be very thin on the ground these days.

So, Graham Young “just came across” the lawyer Johnston’s paper while it was widely being distributed in the ‘denialosphere’ – from Watts to Nova. Fascinating - not really.

Graham says Johnston’s paper “takes a forensic look at the IPCC claims and finds them overstated”.

Of course, if Johnston really did take a forensic look, he just wouldn’t accept the counsel, correction and tutelage of only well known ‘climate change deniers’ – aka; David Henderson, Julia Mahoney, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, and Roger Pielke Sr. Yep, Johnston is a very good lawyer and in a court of law he would present a very good case. However, many people don’t seem to get that ‘climate science’ isn’t judged in a court of law, it is determined by the scientific method and the peer review process.

Which brings us to another load of codswallop (lifted by OLO’s resident spinner who seems to be wetting his pants again) from Lawrence Solomon’s National Post, no less. What Mike Hulme said is being taken out of context in the ‘denialosphere’ (spinner does this all the time, most recently doing the dirty on The Royal Society) – so much so that Hulme has had to issue a clarification (yet again):

http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf

The statement that is getting spun beyond recognition (see spindoc’s last post) is:

>> Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous. <<

What Hulme and Co are saying is that there aren't 2500 attribution experts. Just as there isn’t 2500 Greenland ice mass experts, or ocean acidification experts, or tree ring experts, or add your own experts.

Indeed, nobody who understands the IPCC process ever said there were, and Hulme (and Mahony) were only noting that anyone who did wasn't accurately representing the IPCC. As to spindoc, he clearly doesn’t understand anyway – so yeah, Bugsy - meh.

qanda: << many people don’t seem to get that ‘climate science’ isn’t judged in a court of law, it is determined by the scientific method and the peer review process >>

I agree, except that when it come to interpretation of the science it becomes subject to political spin, which is very amenable to the kind of bogus 'forensic' treatment that Johnston applies here. I think that one reason we're not hearing a great deal about AGW of late is because the 'business as usual' spin doctors won a tactical battle at Copenhagen, which has won them a political reprieve - not to mention putting off for a few more years doing anything about it, and all the costs that will entail.

At the moment the denialist brigade are crowing about their temporary 'victory', but I suspect their triumphalist hubris will be rather short-lived. There's an interesting article in today's 'National Times' about how failure of communication from both sides of the debate has brought us to the current ephemeral situation:

<< Helping unlikely sceptics see that climate change is real
SIMON NIEMEYER
June 16, 2010

The winner-takes-all approach won't lead to constructive debate. >>

http://tiny.cc/ddvcy

It’s just not going to happen is it? A debate I mean. We have a range of facts, Copenhagen has not happened, there is no Nation in the world that has legislated only the European Union. The IPCC, CRU and Pen. State University has lost all credibility due to exaggeration. Serious questions have been asked of the data, processes, modeling, peer review and consensus. There is sufficient doubt that a legal case has been presented through cross examination of all the above. This does not necessarily imply that any individual will get taken to court. What it does point to is the case to be answered by any “entity” that has taken action based upon that advice, particularly if such action can be seen to have “harmed” person(s) or entities. That’s all.

So why is it not possible to have a debate based on what needs to be done next? Why is it so essential to find someone to blame for the the current status? Why is it necessary to keep raking over the same old issues?

If the current status reflects an impasse, what needs to be done to fix this? Surely this is more productive than poking a stick in the eye of anyone who points out that the current status is at best “a draw”.

Why not make some suggestions? If the current scientific team is not credible, why can’t we appoint a fresh team that is supported by both sides of the debate? If the global data sets are lost/corrupt/incomplete, why can’t we support getting that fixed? If the modeling is found deficient, why can’t we use systems that are already proven?

Surely it is utterly futile to now suggest that the IPCC has not overstated there assessments, it’s done, it’s happened, we can’t go back and unscramble the eggs. Those who believe in AGW cannot possibly object to kick starting the scientific analysis afresh?

What do the warmers want done to move this forward? How about some suggestions rather than blame?

CJ

As we can see, there are those stuck in their own political and ideological mud, and those stuck between a rock and a hard place – not mutually exclusive.

For reasonable and rational people, it appears they are moving away from the science (they accept it even if they don’t understand it) to both adaptation AND mitigation. This has to be good.

Ciao

Just in case any spin-doctor is thinking of taking Mike Hulme's clarification out of context (or attributing something to him that he hasn't actually said) here he is clarifying the clarification:

http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Further-Clarification-of-my-Remarks.pdf

QED