JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Skeptical scientists are like… frauds who hunt yetis?

What’s the worst thing you could call a scientist? Apparently, a “climate change denier” and “a fraud”.

Yeti
Even scientists who are hunting Yetis are not suspected of being as evil, unscrupulous and deranged as skeptics-of-the-extent-of the-UN-committee’s-projections-of-man-made-global-warming, aka, “climate-change-deniers”. I mean, who would dare question the UN, eh? It is a collective God, it can’t be wrong — like, say, the Pope in 1633. If they say it’s 3 degrees / 2 degrees /3.3 degrees, whatever, they must be right (even if they do keep changing their mind).

Scientists who are hunting Yetis have no credentials, poor sods and are ripe for a whack.

Who are these “international scientists” who are going to find his Yeti for him? We have been given no names, nor credentials, nor institutions they belong to. I suspect, like so many of the so-called climate-change deniers, they are frauds.

But here’s the thing, I know the author, Darren Curnoe (though it’s been a while), and he’s a really nice guy. We shared a group house once, when I was on the way from science to TV, and he was on the way from TV to science. We had avid conversations about the evolution of the human condition, with zeal, and I remember him fondly, and would be more than happy to have yet another red wine.

So it is with more respect than usual that I mention that perhaps Darren ought read other sites than The Conversation to figure out what makes a skeptic tick. He might find that he’s been falsely sold the line by psychologists like Lewandowsky (don’t you miss the Soviet Union, where if you disagreed you must be mad?) that skeptics have no credentials. Instead skeptics can name 1000 eminent scientists, 9,000 PhD’s, and 900 peer reviewed papers just for starters. “Deniers” include guys like the revered Freeman Dyson, who sat on the board of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, (a group which Darren was impressed by on another thread).  Freeman,  with 21 honorary degrees, and countless prizes, was very much a skeptic. (See the link under 1000 eminent scientists to find scores more “denier” professors who must be hiding their cheques from Exxon).

In the end it wouldn’t matter if we were sheep herders, what matters is the evidence.  Who makes predictions that observations can verify? Skeptics have (forgive me for repeating it) 28 million weather balloons, 6000 boreholes, 3000 argo buoys, and 500 million years of paleohistory* showing how the alarmists theory exaggerates the threat. Alarmists have models, bank-loads of money, hot PR teams, and no scruples about hiding their data or rigging the graphs.

Who breaks laws of reason, hailing Gods of science? Not skeptics.

So Darren, good to hear you are back from your travels, fabulous to know that you did find rich rewards in evolutionary studies, and seriously, before you toss a defamatory cliche about independent scientists who are skeptical, perhaps you might try reading some of our sites, or even, dare I say it, talk to a skeptic?

It’s a topsy turvey world out there. Unlike the mainstream memo points: the money and power is on the side of those who spread alarm, but the observations and the logic is with the skeptics. Skeptics want a debate, but alarmists find every reason not too. Skeptics discuss peer reviewed papers, and the fully funded experts  respond by calling them “deniers”.

My page for new readers is here.

Dear Darren, please take this in the right spirit.  Just like you, I thought CO2 mattered. I haven’t changed. I’m just as passionate as ever, but now I have better data.

Yes, I may be crazy, I do all this, and I still haven’t heard from Exxon.

* Yes, I had an extensive debate with a paleoclimatologist and you can hunt through the pages, but what is impossible to find is any definitive past correlation where CO2 drove temperatures.

PS: Climate stuff aside, I did enjoy reading about your work, and am, as always fascinated by hominid evolution.

 

H/t Mike W

Image: The Hymalyan Yeti, JNL

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (7 votes cast)
Skeptical scientists are like... frauds who hunt yetis?, 8.7 out of 10 based on 7 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/5skefpc

181 comments to Skeptical scientists are like… frauds who hunt yetis?

  • #
    The_Borg

    Oh please – what a tease. With the rare exception of Lindzen and Spencer (and again wrong) we’re subject to pretentious sceptic dross from Archibald solar concoctions and the lamentable McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14104. as examples.

    So when sceptic start seriously critiquing their mates’ utter rubbish we might actually sit up and consider. Until then zzzzzzzzzzzz

    Yes we know – the climate always changes – what idiocy as a critique of AGW.
    —————–
    REPLY: Is that the best you can do? I link to 900 papers, and Mr Borg can declare two “pretentious” and “lamentable” with no reasoning… well that’s it then eh? (As it happens, Archibald and McLean have both got a better track record with predictions than the GCM’s. — JN)


    Report this

    01

    • #

      So when sceptic start seriously critiquing their mates’ utter rubbish we might actually sit up and consider. Until then zzzzzzzzzzzz

      I refer my right ‘orrible friend to the responses to recent posts here, where there’s plenty of discussion, disparate views, and consequent disagreement amongst commenters. Indeed, were it not so, I’d not be inclined to participate. Popular “sceptical” blogs such as this one, WUWT and and many others are healthy and vibrant forums for open debate. Opposing views supported by reasoned argument are welcomed, and are not subject to arbitrary comment deletion.

      Look a little closer to home to see abundant evidence of not “seriously critiquing their mates”.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        J.H.

        Popular “sceptical” blogs such as this one, WUWT and and many others are healthy and vibrant forums for open debate. Opposing views supported by reasoned argument are welcomed, and are not subject to arbitrary comment deletion.

        Exactly harmless…. I notice on WUWT that they have caught “SkepticalScience’s” John Cook rewriting his blogs post histories and cooking th’ books…. so to speak.


        Report this

        10

        • #

          In my naive ignorance, I’d always assumed that apart from correcting typos and similar trivial errors, it was customary to acknowledge errors and amendments in the text of blog posts and articles. There’s no “loss of face” from correcting an error of fact or opinion. It shows the author is learning and developing his/her argument. I’d argue it increases the credibility of the author.

          Deleting comments for no apparent reason is bad enough, but to edit them by removing chunks and changing wording?


          Report this

          00

        • #

          BTW, did you notice that little typo in #1.1?

          WUWT and and

          I’m always right, but I like to make the occasional deliberate error to show I’m human. At least, that’s what my shrink recommended. I’ll start taking the tablets again tomorrow.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Dagfinn

      Everybody has a right to their priorities in what they critcize. Ideas that get major coverage in the mainstream media is a good place to start, in my opinion. If climate scientists can find the courage and integrity to point out the errors of Al Gore and other activists and not just leave it to the skeptics, that would be really useful. It does happen, occasionally: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/07/al-gore-science-climate-weather?CMP=twt_gu

      Alas, this is the exception, not the rule.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I’m no Damien Allen, with exclamation marks and links a plenty, but every now and then I stumble across one too good to not share.

    This one puts climate skeptics in context, rather beautifully!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dagfinn

      You mean the conspiracy theories about the skeptics, right?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      J.H.

      Not Climate Skeptics John….. AGW skeptics and CAGW skeptical in particular….. But th’ distinction will be lost on you…. So I press on with my other comment to ya….;-)

      You seem to be yucking it up that skeptics are paranoid, after a quick squiz at yer link there…..

      …and a small point about conduct and behaviour popped into me head, it did John.

      Skeptical blogs don’t censor debate, yet AGW proponent blogs do…. and not only censor, they rewrite the history and context of the posts on their blogs… WUWT’s expose’ on Skepticalscience’s John “mac th’ scissors” Cook and his revisionist history, for example…..

      Or are we just bein’ paranoid…?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Here everything is just hunky dory. Jo and the modbots let me say anything. Not so good at WUWT, where one day my posts just started vanishing…

        So maybe only WUWT are paranoid?

        Of course, Tamino is my favourite. He lets annoying people talk for a while, and then, “Wham!” they are gone. I’m sure he does it on purpose, lets them get all worked up thinking they are making some really telling point and then “poof”, gone.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Peter Wilson

          Yes John, Taminos tactics are quite common at consensus believer sites. I take it you approve of this style of debate by deletion


          Report this

          00

        • #

          I have been a moderator on WUWT for the last couple of years. I have moderated some 200,000 reader comments. I can state categorically that posted comments are not retroactively deleted. WUWT takes pride in “moderating with a light touch,” allowing everyone to have their say, so long as they remain within site Policy. Previously posted comments are never deleted.

          There are much more egregious comments than anything John Brookes has posted, which can be found in the archives. No one is singling out Mr Brookes or anyone else. Once a comment is posted, it remains posted.

          I will mention, however, that WordPress is not perfect, and ocassionally someone will complain that their comment did not appear. When that happens I ask them to re-post it. Comments often end up in the Spam folder, according to the WordPress algorithm which they do not disclose. I check the Spam bucket several times a day and rescue all legitimate comments.

          [Funnily enough I just rescued yours from the spam folder.][ mod oggi]


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Sean McHugh

            I didn’t think that WUWT would be disappearing stuff the way the global warming lobby and the Australian government do. That is really what this is all about, our government (from Orwell’s 1984) disappearing thousands of submissions against a carbon tax. Starting in an earlier thread John Brookes has been assuming a familiar posture of congenial semi-neutrality while subtly defending the government and pointing to the sceptics. He probably wasn’t expecting WUWT to be alerted to this latest.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      ,memoryvault

      Thanks for the link, John. Definitely describes the cult of CAGW to a “T”.
      Which certainly puts us skeptics in context –

      .
      - as the opposers of the irrational group cult mentality of you CAGW doomsayers.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      Interesting an alarmist reads Hofstader who also got his ideas secondhand or so it seems:

      “The sharpest criticism of Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915 focused on Hofstadter’s weakness as a research scholar: he did little or no research into manuscripts, newspapers, archival, or unpublished sources. Instead, he primarily relied upon secondary sources augmented by his lively style and wide-ranging interdisciplinary readings, this producing very well-written arguments based upon scattered evidence he found by reading other historians.[18]” wiki

      One could be sure this ex-communist party member were he now alive, he died in 1970, would also have been an avid reader of the second hand variety of “climate science” blog sites that are so popular with alarmist fellow travelers.

      A bit more from wiki on Hofstader who would have loved things like carbon taxes to help stuff up sound, functioning, “capitalistic” economies::

      “Richard Hofstadter was a Communist and a member of the Young Communist League at university, and later progressed to Communist Party membership. In 1936, he entered the doctoral program in history at Columbia University, where Merle Curti was demonstrating how to synthesize intellectual, social, and political history based upon secondary sources rather than primary-source archival research.[4] In 1938, he joined the Communist Party of the USA, yet realistically qualified his action: “I join without enthusiasm, but with a sense of obligation…. My fundamental reason for joining is that I don’t like capitalism and want to get rid of it. I am tired of talking…. The party is making a very profound contribution to the radicalization of the American people…. I prefer to go along with it now.” In late 1939, he ended the Communist stage of his life, because of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and Germany. He remained anti-capitalist: “I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it”.[5]“


      Report this

      00

    • #

      John, skeptics like my self do not believe in lunatic political conspiracies like the JFK assassination.

      You seem confused in that it is not a conspiracy for those who hold similar political ideologies, American Democrats, American Liberals, Progressives, Social-Democrats, Labor, Greens ect… to all hold similar anti-capitalist views. The same is true in climate science.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Get a life John!


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Don’t you just love those with no understanding of American politics, who have no facts to debate, so they merely attack the messengers? Nice hack job. About as relevant as a drunk counting pink elephants because he cannot herd them.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Do you realize that it was written decades ago?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    only the Daily Mail has reported this “leak”, originally on 9 Oct, then updated here. we must not inform the public when it comes to all things CAGW. love the “green signals” which have been lost along the way:

    10 Oct: UK Daily Mail: ‘Green’ air fares levy is just a tax grab on hard-up households admits Osborne
    by Ray Massey, Transport Editor
    A controversial ‘green’ levy that adds hundreds of pounds to family holidays is a simple tax grab on hard-pressed households, the Chancellor has admitted.
    Air Passenger Duty has been dressed up as an environmental measure designed to discourage air travel.
    But in a leaked letter, George Osborne says: ‘APD is fundamentally a revenue raising duty and currently raises around £2.5billion per year.’
    Last night one senior aviation figure said: ‘The cat is out of the bag with this admission. It’s a tax grab, pure and simple.’
    Mr Osborne is expected to announce a rise in APD for 2012 in next month’s autumn statement.
    At present, a family of four flying economy to Florida pay a total of £240 tax.
    APD was introduced by the Tories in 1994 as a straightforward way to raise money but was swiftly rebranded as a ‘green signals’ tax by Labour…
    Mr Osborne’s admission that the tax, divided into four bands according to the length of flights, is nothing more than a way of raising cash comes in a letter dated August 12 to Olivier Jankovec, director general of the Brussels-based Airports Council International…
    Louise Ellman, who chairs the Commons transport select committee, said: ‘There is great ambiguity as to whether the Government is telling us that this is a green tax or a revenue raising tax.’
    The Labour MP said that in recent years APD had been modified ‘to provide green signals. Now it’s not clear’…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047242/Osborne-Green-air-fares-levy-just-tax-grab-hard-households.html

    Express has a different angle:

    9 Oct: UK Express: Tracey Boles: TAXES PRICE US OUT OF AIR
    AVIATION is being taxed more heavily than banking and is pricing many families out of flying, figures reveal.
    Between now and 2016 the Air Passenger Duty is expected to raise £15.3billion while the bank levy will bring in £12.6billion, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility…
    The tax, the highest in Europe, is usually passed on to passengers in higher fares…
    Many European countries have dropped aviation taxes, due to the negative effects on their economies. In the longer-term, analysis shows the UK economy will lose £750million and 18,000 jobs due to previous rises in APD.
    The Government has been consulting on reforms to APD, which include simplifying it. There are four charging bands which could be cut to two…
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276320/Taxes-price-us-out-of-air

    meanwhile, over in Northern Ireland, making things up as they go along as usual, Chancellor George Osborne has agreed to lower the Air Passenger Duty (APD) so Northern Ireland can compete with the Republic of Ireland:

    11 Oct: Belfast Telegraph: £3m cost of air tax cuts is worth it: minister
    Reducing Air Passenger Duty (APD) in Northern Ireland will cost £3m, the Finance Minister has said.
    It is a price worth paying to preserve the link with North America and attract investment, Sammy Wilson told the Assembly.
    Chancellor George Osborne has confirmed his decision to cut the levy and devolve its control to the Stormont Executive.
    Mr Wilson said: “The whole idea is that we believe this was a cost worth paying. To have the transatlantic link was important.”
    The move followed warnings that Northern Ireland’s failure to match the lower duty rate of the Republic could make long-haul flights from Belfast uneconomical…
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/3m-cost-of-air-tax-cuts-is-worth-it-minister-16062080.html

    if you are in the airline or tourism business, or just like travelling, read this comprehensive report on the “royal mess” by the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation (CAPA):

    11 Oct: CAPA: UK Aviation Policy, a royal mess
    http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/uk-aviation-policy-a-royal-mess-60327

    btw folks with small industry websites in the tourism and travel industries are reporting Osborne’s admission APD is purely a tax. their voices are rarely being heard in the MSM though. the CAGW bankers/pollies want their “financial instruments” and to hell with the rest of us. shame on the Greens and Independents. surely one of you has a spine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The_Borg

    Jo we all know the list of 900 papers is nonsense. What a kitchen sink collection of crap. What fraudulent nonsense. When sceptics seriously criticise their own will be see any decency. Until then it pure politics and tribalism.

    00

    • #
      Dagfinn

      “…we all know…” It’s good that someone else knows what I know since I don’t. :-D


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Be accurate Borg, it is fraudulent, repeated, nonsense.

      And they do criticise their own. Have you not heard the disparaging term “luke-warmer”, which roughly translates to, “I used to think they were ok, but now it seems they aren’t”.

      We can look forward to the AGW “skeptics” gradually splintering into smaller and smaller groups, who hate each other almost as much as they hate the establishment. Monty Python and “The People’s Front for Judea” springs to mind.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Peter Wilson

        John B and Borg

        Actually, its a list of 900 peer reviewed scientific papers. Are you suggesting they are all fraudulent? On what basis? And if they are, what does that say about peer review as an indicator of scientific credibility.

        And there’s nothing wrong with repeating the truth.

        Although its quite clear you have no interest in whether they are correct or not. They don’t say what you want them to, so that makes them fraudulent nonsense. The poverty of your argument is evident for all to see.

        Sorry folks. No more troll feeding from me today


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Tristan

        Actually, its a list of 900 peer reviewed scientific papers. Are you suggesting they are all fraudulent?

        Peter, I admit confusion. Just how many peer-reviewed scientific papers do you think get published per year that support AGW? For the record, it’s several thousand. Are you suggesting that all of those are fraudulent?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Peter Wilson

          Several thousand? What absolute cobblers! Did you just pluck that out of the air? Can you provide any evidence whatsoever for this ridiculous claim? The real number would be a few dozen, and few recently have added much at all in the way of observational data, as opposed to yet more model runs.

          If there were that many real, peer reviewed papers supporting the CAGW hypothesis, the IPCC wouldn’t have found it necessary to rely so heavily on pamphlets and brochures by NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF.

          You look very silly making numbers up like that.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Peter Wilson

            I should point out that the reason so few papers which feature real world observational data, and which lend support to the CAGW hypothesis, have been published in recent years, is that nature is refusing to play ball. As a result, very few recent real world observations actually support AGW, leaving consensus scientists little to do but devise yet more inventive reasons for the “pause” in warming – all supported by the very most powerful and sophisticated computer models.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          So it’s science by numbers, is it? Arguments from consensus and authority carry no weight. Einstein said of the hundreds of Nazi scientists beavering away to prove him wrong “Just one paper would be enough”. If the CERN scientists are proved right about some neutrinos moving faster than light, and publish, that one paper will overturn a century of consensus.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Tristan

        Peter, have you heard of Google Scholar? You can check for yourself. Conveniently, someone else has already put in the time and effort.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Tristan so you do not know how to use Google Scholar any better than Rob at Skeptical Science?

          Please provide me with the 1001 search result from any of his Google Scholar searches.

          http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html

          Update: Rob was forced to concede I was correct (though never owns up to blatantly lying) and has desperately made a flawed updated “analysis”. His original inaccurate number of 954,000 results went down to 189,553 results (which he fails to mention in his update) of which 160,130 (84%) CANNOT BE VERIFIED due to the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar. The remaining results are irrefutably filled with erroneous nonsense that has to be individually removed before any sort of accurate count can be taken (see the updates for more information). None of which was done leaving his post to be worthless and those who cite it computer illiterate.

          Very embarrassing for you.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            Such anger. Since when was Google scholar a catch all for seriously searching literature. Even if it went beyond 1000, I’d be wanting to see the results from a properly constructed database.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Peter Wilson

          Tristan

          As I suspected, your figures come from a search on the term “climate change” and “global warming”. Are you seriously suggesting that any paper containing these phrases is therefore supportive of AGW? For a start, this search would obviously call up all those on Poptech’s list of sceptical papers, as well as large numbers of papers having nothing substantial to say either way on the subject. You offer no evidence at all that ANY, let alone all, of these papers support your viewpoint.

          If this is the level of scholarship we are expected to accept, no wonder your side isn’t gaining much traction.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          I’m not going to engage with Poptech, I’ve seen where that goes.

          For the other doubters, perhaps you prefer this list.

          Certainly no anger here Gee Aye. :)


          Report this

          00

          • #

            You are not going to engage me because I will not be censored here and can actually defend myself. I like how your numbers quickly get smaller and smaller and smaller,

            954,000 (forced to admit was bogus) to 189,553 (160,130 cannot be verified) to 27,989 (unverified) papers. Unverified because unfortunately out of your new number you would still need to determined which papers endorse let alone even mention AGW (forget about CAGW). Then you have the papers that are anti-AGW and anti-CAGW with the majority not taking either side.

            As your number reduction game continues there is plenty to doubt.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Tristan, where did you go? You keep making false claims about numbers and when you lose the argument you throw out new smaller numbers. So it appears you cannot defend your argument, rather pathetic.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            I didn’t go anywhere, I just don’t respond to baiting. *hugs pop*


            Report this

            00

          • #

            There is no baiting. There is simply you making claims you cannot back up.


            Report this

            00

      • #

        John, name one “fraudulent” paper that was retracted by the journal it was published in that is on the list. Otherwise you have no evidence of any such “fraud”.

        “Luke-Warmer” translates into generic AGW believer (usually politically liberal) who was convinced enough by skeptic arguments to back away from Alarmist positions. The reason they call themselves “luke-warmers” is to save face among their liberal friends for fear of being called “anti-science deniers”. Luke-Warmers greatly increased in numbers after Climategate but don’t be fooled into thinking they are defecting skeptics.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Dagfinn

          To simplify, lukewarmer is a perfectly reasonable position taken by, among others, Warren Meyer of climate-skeptic.com and Pat Michaels. The idea is that the IPCCs estimate of the direct effect of anthropogenic CO2 is reasonable (amounting to about 1 degree C of warming), but that the positive feedback effects that are supposed to amplify this are unlikely. Of course 1 degree is not going to cause catastrophe, so this is an anti-alarmist standpoint.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Dr. Michaels only recently started using the term, his position has been the same and he did not “break away from skeptics”. The reason for the using the term now is the same, it appeals to left leaning individuals who have accepted the reality of what was exposed by Climategate. Whatever works.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dagfinn

            Poptech: Well, if you want to interpret it that way, I can live with it. I just think it’s conceivable that some people use terms for the various positions in the climate debate as a shorthand for actual opinions, not just to play a social game to impress, provoke or denigrate. I could be wrong, though.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Dagfinn, I don’t have a problem with the term but rather it’s context implied by John. There was never some group of skeptics who became “lukewarmers”. The term was used mainly by those who used to knee-jerk accept alarmist positions and now have become more skeptical not the other way around as John implies. It is also used by others new to the debate, which is fine. I just have a big problem with John claiming that they are former skeptics as if to imply some sort of splintering is going on.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dagfinn

            Poptech: Absolutely, I agree. That seems completely fictional.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dagfinn

            In fact, it was one of the reasons why John seemed like a troll who wasn’t even worth replying to.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Peter Wilson

        Your comment on those calling themselves (or being called) “lukewarmers” deserves further attention. It seems to me that this category encompasses all those who accept the basic “greenhouse” theory of IR absorption and re-emission, as per Tyndall and Arrhenius, but who do not accept that this fact alone, or anything else yet observed, implies that CO2 is the dominant driver in climate, or that our emissions of said CO2 have been demonstrated to constitute a major threat, either now or in the future.

        Now I would say this covers the vast majority of commenters on sceptic blogs, and a very significant number of scientists (a hell of a lot more than 3% anyway!). The main dissenters from this view fall into 2 camps; those who do not believe we are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels (or that there hasn’t been a rise), and those who believe the greenhouse theory is fundamentally flawed – the Skydragon group, if you like. While these groups are fairly vocal, and are accorded a civil hearing on most sceptic blogs, their views are not highly regarded in most scientific circles.

        Of course, more “lukewarm” sceptics often make common cause with these groups, because their views lead to essentially the same policy prescriptions as the lukewarm position (opposition to carbon taxes, cap & trade, “green” energy etc). I also know of no evidence that these people, who many warmists would call true “deniers”, are either evil, stupid, or funded by Big Oil (if they are, Big Oil is backing a loser). They just have a different opinion on certain scientific issues, which I and many others here would disagree with – is there any reason all sceptics should have identical opinions on everything?


        Report this

        00

    • #

      The Borg, lol, decency? When the so-called experts start criticizing their own for losing data, hiding records, distorting color scales on graphs, incessantly calling people names, using wind-shear to measure temps instead of thermometers, etc etc then we’ll know what decency is.

      But you’re right, it’s tribal. Some people “believe” in global warming, then there are scientists.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Tristan

      Wind-shear to measure temps? Those dastardly warmists, no right-thinking skeptic would ever do such a thing ;)


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Wind Shear is not the same thing as ZONAL winds.

        The greater the temperature difference between the surface and the upper atmosphere.The stronger the winds.

        The winds themselves does not measure temperature,They are caused by a temperature GRADIENT.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Well, I believe in the published IPCC statements by Otto Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, amongst others, as posted on my blogsite.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Tristan

        Hi Michael

        A) It’s not a ‘published IPCC statement’

        B) If you’re going to post quotes, post them in their entirety :)

        Edenhofer accurately states the politics of climate change.

        First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this

        Of course it is a de facto redistribution of wealth. When the value of fossil fuel material changes, a country’s wealth-generation potential from mining changes. Not exactly a news flash.

        One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

        As he points out, it’s a completely different ballgame to previous examples of environmental policy. The win/loss potentials for different nations is huge. Climate change is a worldwide economic problem.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Peter Wilson

          Tristan

          You know, when sceptics accuse warmers of having opinions like these, we are typically accused of being “world government conspiracy theorists”, or some other simile for a right wing nut job.

          So much more convincing from the horses mouth. Thanks for clearing that up.


          Report this

          00

    • #

      Sorry Borg but the papers are very real, despite your desperation to wish them away.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      • #

        The sad commentary is he was given evidence – and he refused to examine it. He dismissed it out of hand because it did not fit with his religious dogma. It is not that he does not like skeptics, it is that they appear to threaten his very existence. Sadly, there are many out there like that.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo,

    9000 Ph. D’s? That’s not counting the lurkers. Add another Ph. D.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dagfinn

    Jo, the obvious reason why climate skeptics are considered more evil than yeti-hunters is that climate skeptics destroy the planet, probably with some help from aliens. And destroying the planet, like wasting old ladies, isn’t NICE.

    :-D


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Remember that adage

    KISS

    Or keep It Simple Skeptic.

    I don’t like the term skeptic because it if it is accepted as a tag it implies that there is something to be skeptical of.

    Back to simple: Warmers love to add layers of complexity to arguments about CO2 because it helps hide the amazing simplicity of the science which disproves Man Made Global Warming as an issue in our future.

    There is no physical reality in saying that man made CO2 has the potential to influence world atmospheric temperatures.

    The constructs used by warmers to justify the “CO2 as devil gas” hypothesis are the invention of environmental scientists with dubious basic grounding in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Orbital Mechanics, Geology and Thermodynamics, to name a few relevant skills.

    This would not be a problem normally but these “scientists” fail to seek expert input in all these areas and refuse advice when offered.

    The reasons why they fail to engage with mainstream scientists is obvious.

    The whole thing is a scientific, financial and political fraud of immense proportions and benefit to the IN crowd.

    Money speaks – loudly.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      catamon

      Remember that adage

      KISS

      Or keep It Simple Skeptic.

      Actually, its keep it simple stupid. Your surely not contending that “skeptic” and “stupid” are interchangeable??


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Come on Mary. Very few real “skeptics” doubt that that the CO2 man puts into the atmosphere influences climate. They argue instead about how much influence it has. Will a doubling of CO2 lead to a 1 degree rise in average temperature, or a 3 degree rise?

      And as I understand it, the warmers don’t like a lot of complexity. Its a fairly simple story. CO2 and some other gases are transparent to short wavelength EM radiation, but absorb long wavelength EM radiation. This keeps the earth’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be. Water is the most important of these gases, but the amount of water in the atmosphere is a function of temperature – so if you increase CO2, it traps more heat, and increases the amount of water in the atmosphere – which traps more heat. This is the positive feedback which amplifies the warming from CO2.

      Its not a runaway feedback, just an amplification. At the moment, the serious scientists and skeptics are concerned with understanding and quantifying the feedbacks.

      There is also the role of the oceans, both in absorbing CO2, and in storing heat (natural climate variability), and in transporting heat around the world.

      So I take it back, it is a bit complicated – but only because it is!

      “Skeptics” seem to fall into two main camps. Those who think its simpler than climate scientists say, and those who think its more complicated. Of course both camps are right. The fundamentals (which will get you good approximations) are very simple, but the complete picture is too complex. Which is why regional climate modelling is still a bit suspect.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MaryFJohnston

        “”so if you increase CO2, it traps more heat, and increases the amount of water in the atmosphere – which traps more heat”"

        G A R B G E.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        wes george

        Congratulations, John, you actually stated a rational argument for CAGW!

        I’m not being snarky about this (as I usually am) I’m really respectful of anyone who can rationally and fairly accurately describe the AGW position in their own words. That’s rare bird, nowadays.

        Of course, I think your argument has a fundamental weakness and I’ll get to that in a moment.

        But first let’s be clear, out of the dozen or so pro-CAGW comment so far in this thread not one shred of rational evidence for CAGW has been expounded instead its just been a collection of playground taunts. Nah, nah, my side has more cool scientists then yours. Carter’s a dag! Nah, nah, I use Google scholar, blah, blah, blah.

        The pathetic thing is that the pro-CAGW hecklers don’t even seem to realise that if the best you have is sophomoric taunts, you automatically lose. Not only do you out yourselves as having no argument, but you’re not even self-aware enough to realise what a shame that is. You’re rhetorically illiterate. Obviously, Jo’s readers will probably from there jump to to conclusion that you must therefore be scientifically illiterate as well.

        Oh, well, I no longer expect anyone to show up anywhere to make a rational, evidence-based argument for CAGW, not on Jo’s blog, not in parliament (where peer-reviewed research which doesn’t support the CAGW faith has been forbidden to be tabled!) and certainly not in the state-owned media, our ABC.

        So, that’s why I’m proud of John Brookes, for having the intelligence and the respect to actually stake out a plausible argument for CAGW. Good on, mate.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        wes george

        Now for why you are wrong.

        First you’re correct that CO2 actually has almost no further warming power left. It’s already warmed the earth virtually all it can at today’s levels, doubling, trebling it will have almost no effect. It’s called the logarithmic effect of CO2.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

        The logarithmic effect isn’t some Denialist lunacy, it’s 100% IPCC certified science, although to find a clear explanation of it I had to scour the bowels of the Internet. Funny that. No pro-CAGW site, including wiki like to dwell on the logarithmic effect of CO2 much. Instead, they prefer to digress into Modtran radiative forcing, upward irradiance at 20 km as expressed in Wm-2cm…all good stuff, of course. But all designed to obscure the fact that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from todays level won’t have any impact on global temperatures, in and of itself.

        Strangely, the nice people in my town have a whole different impression about how filthy carbon pollution works. Get this…. Every normal person (you know, people who work for a living and have no special interest in the climate debate other than how a new tax might effect them) Every normal person I’ve ever asked literally think that every extra chunk of “carbon pollution” emitted into the atmosphere increases the Earth’s temperature in a roughly linear way. Oddly, no one on TV or the radio has ever tried to clear up this misconception for them. Funny that.

        So, it’s refreshing to hear that John understands that the only way CO2 can actually further warm the atmosphere is if we assume an awesomely powerful positive feedback loop–which has never been observed–has already been kick started.

        You see, CO2 increases warmed the atmosphere last century and that caused water, an even more powerful greenhouse gas to evaporate from the ocean and further warm the planet, further warming caused even more water to evaporate and this warmed the planet even more which caused more water to evaporate and so on and on.

        The problem is that there is no observational evidence supporting this, just pretty computer models which were programmed to create results which confirmed the CAGW theory, whether consciously or through naive confirmation bias. Either way, computer models aren’t evidence since a model can be constructed that shows negative water vapor feedback as well.

        But the real problem with the positive water vapor feedback theory of CAGW is that it totally defies everything we know about how complex nonlinear systems like the Earth’s biosphere maintain themselves. Complex systems regulate themselves with negative feedback loops, not positive. Something as fundamental as the atmospheric water cycle can’t ultimately be a positive feedback on temperature, or the whole climate would spiral out of control and since we know the Earth’s biosphere has been relatively stable for a very, very long time, this seems unlike. Even John recognizes this as problem. “Its not a runaway feedback, just an amplification,” he hedges.

        So, let’s just look at some of the historical evidence and see if we can find positive water vapor feedback powerful enough to melt Greenland and raise sea levels 6 meters. Let’s look at past episodes of global warming. There was Minoan Warm Period, about 3,000 bce, There was the Roman Warm Period at the beginning of the current era and the Medieval Warm Period about 1000 years ago. All these warm periods were as warm or as much as 1c or 2c warmer than today. So we would expect that if water vapor feedback was as powerfully positive as is necessary for modern catastrophic forecasts that during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods the ice caps would have melted and the oceans would have swelled by up to 6 meters or more. But that didn’t happen at all.

        Worse, according to the CAGW theory once the earth warmed up to today’s level during the early Minoan Warm Period positive feedback loops would have pushed the climate systems over the fabled “tipping point” and it would have remained very warm for thousands of years thereafter, precluding all the later warm and cool variations we know existed.

        But nothing like that occurred. Instead, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods peaked and then fairly rapidly cooled off. Curious, eh? No extended warm period due to elevated water vapor levels???

        Could it be because as the earth warms water is indeed evaporated from the oceans and while it’s true that water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, clouds are ultimately an even more potent regulator of climate, thus making water vapor in the end always a negative feedback on temperatures at least during climate warm periods?

        Nah, couldn’t be. Because if water vapor feedback is ultimately negative then everything we have ever been told about CAGW is wrong. And 99.99 google scholars out of 100 couldn’t be wrong.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          Wes, the logarithmic behaviour of CO2 is implicit in the “doubling of CO2″ that is so often referred to. Each doubling of CO2 increases the logarithm by the same amount. That people don’t understand this is not surprising.

          As for negative feedback, there is one fundamental one, the T^4 dependancy of radiation. In the last few million years, we’ve oscillated between ice ages and warm periods, presumable driven by changes in insolation due to changes in the earth’s orbit. The change from one state to the other seems pretty quick, as though each of the two extremes is reasonably stable, but the points in between are not. The T^4 will cut in at some point and stop further warming. The reduction in ice cover as the earth warms is also a positive feedback, but its a positive feedback which steadily decreases as the ice recedes.

          But right now we are in a warm period, and are conducting an experiment that is warming us up. We don’t know if we’ll kick ourselves out of the stable warm period and into some new climate. The push that we are supplying by adding CO2 was not part of earlier warm periods, so they offer little information on what will happen this time.

          It should be noted that the earth has been ice free for long periods in the past, and we may be heading that way again.

          Anyway, I hope you are right and clouds turn are found to be a sufficient negative feedback to stop warming.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        I think everybody should pay attention to John’s:
        “Very few real “skeptics” doubt that that the CO2 man puts into the atmosphere influences climate. They argue instead about how much influence it has.”

        This is the difference between honest scepticism, and the kooky “denier” nonsense that we read so much about.

        As for genuine scepticism, the failure of the (very very few) credentialled sceptics to mount a coherent and convincing argument for a low sensitivity value makes me – a sceptic – very sceptical of low sensitivity being a likely reality.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      MaryFJohnston

      sorry, that should have been

      G A R B A G E


      Report this

      00

  • #
    GrazingGoat66

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/10/us-scientists-confirm-trend-america-cooling-for-last-15-years-warming-non-existent.html

    Oh oh! Another report that the warmists wont want to see the light of day. But on the bright side, if this keeps up, it will be responsible for a lot more terrain for the yeti to thrive in…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    So, Mary, is Roger Pielke Sr a scientist or not?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ferdinand

    In most walks in life healthy sceptism trumps gullibilty every time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Just been reading some of the “climate experts” on the Conversation. With the exception of David Karoly none appear to be involved in reasearching Earth’s climate system. Like Tim Flannery and Wil Steffen they mostly seem to come from other disciplines and perhaps they are the climate scientists who we are told all agree that “the science” is indisputable.

    The interesting thing is this collection of marine biologists, social scientists, psychiatrists and a strange assortment of science bits and pieces are academics in Climate Change Departments in Universities or government. On that basis of their lack of genuine climate science involvement joined with a pecuniary interest it’s a bit hard to take any of them too seriously.

    Most it seems have read the IPCC reports, which they quote extensively as if it were a holy text and imagine that it is gospel of the scientific variety.

    In that context it would be interesting to get a list of the number of genuine, credible climate scientists who are engaged in research and not merely seat warmers on a good salary. One cannot help but think it is a pretty small proportion of those foisted upon us as credible climate scientists.

    Perhaps after all Christy, Lindzen and Spencer et al are in a majority when it comes to the real deal?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Plenty of ‘robust’ debate here (don’t call them ‘trolls’, well, not yet, anyway) — spillover from the moribund Deltoid which can only muster a post a week and a handful of lame comments, probably.

    If I’m right, Jo needs to sound the Self-Righteous Moralising Invasion alert.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Go on Rick, you know we are trolls;-)

      As for Deltoid, Skeptical Science, Tamino, Real Climate, etc, the reason they don’t have as many posts as, say, WUWT, is that things of importance happen slowly in science. And if you don’t have conspiracies to talk about, there just isn’t that much to say. Take, for example, the “faster than light” neutrinos. There is an awful lot of work gone into that, and the odds are that it will turn out to be (has already turned out to be?) a false alarm. If we are very lucky, a false alarm which will change our understanding of the world, but more likely, just a false alarm.

      I’ve tried commenting at Real Climate, and I usually just can’t do it, because I don’t understand enough to meaningfully contribute. Deltoid is fun, simply because the residents there are ferocious. A bit like Eddy Aruda, but on the other side. Tamino is a jet. His exposure of “mathturbation” is wonderful. Skeptical Science is like Real Climate – hard work, but worth it if you can persist.

      I like this blog, because its residents are entertaining (if occasionally rude to me), and your comments appear straight away.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        As for Deltoid, Skeptical Science, Tamino, Real Climate, etc, the reason they don’t have as many posts as, say, WUWT, is that things of importance happen slowly in science.

        There are none so blind…..


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Robert

        I’ve tried commenting at Real Climate, and I usually just can’t do it, because I don’t understand enough to meaningfully contribute.

        Odd, not understanding enough to meaningfully contribute doesn’t stop you from commenting here where you also don’t understand enough to meaningfully contribute.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Dagfinn

        John, I believed you were troll to begin with because your comments seemed totally without substance. But I can you’re actually debating.

        I thoroughly disagree with your assessment of blogs like RealClimate, but I can understand it. They had me fooled for a while, in the sense that I believed they were sincere.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Dagfinn

        And the crux of the matter is, if you’re not qualified to comment on a particular issue, you’re not qualified to tell whether an article on the issue is information or propaganda.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Tristan

        I’m here because I’m trying to learn about several things:

        1) Dispute resolution
        2) People’s relationship with their opinions
        3) State of the AGW debate
        4) Joanne

        Oh, and for entertainment. It’s another enclosure in the great zoo of humanity. Definitely a few people here several std devs from the mean. ;)

        [Einsteins standard deviation was off the chart. mod oggi]


        Report this

        00

    • #
      catamon

      If I’m right, Jo needs to sound the Self-Righteous Moralising Invasion alert.

      Oh my doG! Really!!! Where? Flee!!!!

      You need to lighten up Rick. At least here the comments are few enough so that you can pop off and do life stuff for a few hours and then catch up without having to go through pages of comments like on some of the mainstream politics blogs.

      A bit like John i find the residents here entertaining, but, i have also learned a lot by coming here. :)


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Dagfinn mentioned aliens in #6. Here’s Andrew Dessler (he of the “super fast” response to Spencer’s cloud paper) proving he’s not of this Earth (my bold)

    “Every month, hundreds of papers come out that are either explicitly or implicitly in agreement with mainstream climate theory that humans are in the driver’s seat of the climate and that future warmings could be really large,” Dessler said. “And those papers don’t get any traction in the media. But then a handful of papers published every year by hard-core skeptics do get a lot of traction because there’s a huge sympathetic media for those papers.

    h/t Tom Nelson


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    Instead skeptics can name 1000 eminent scientists, 9,000 PhD’s, and 900 peer reviewed papers just for starters.

    A) All smaller numbers than those on the other side

    B) But that (or mentioning freeman dyson) would be an argument from authority anyway wouldn’t it?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Galileo was in a small number as well. Science is not the art of large numbers. It is the discernment of the facts. Something that the AGW faithful have either failed to understand, or reject as contrary to their prejudices.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Rising quakes – volcanic activity – cloud cover – storms – floods, as happened just before world-devastating 5year 1815-20 Tambora volcanic winter and during most of the Little Ice Age, that provoked the cannibalic COLLAPSE of deforestating Mayas, Aztecs, Incas…

    If altruist rescuers coordinate, humankind may revive truce and mutual-aid to AVERT next ice age!
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nvSG3nbwTJU/TikXuPeac1I/AAAAAAAAAvg/gQthSGp13JQ/s1600/volcanic+crater+cap+2.jpg.

    We immediately must test the proposal to AVERT volcanic winter through crater-caps/grids hold by zeppelins over extra active volcanoes to prevent ash ejection to the stratosphere: the begining of every ice age.
    OPEN PUBLIC DIALOGUE, DECENTRALIZATION and GLOBAL AFFORESTATIONS offer food and wood, promote mutual-aid and prevent cannibalism.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Cannibalism? On the chance that you are actually serious with this IF things get to the point where people must resort to cannibalism then there are much, much larger problems.

      Other than cultures where it is practiced as part of their system of beliefs and holds a symbolic meaning it has never been a primary food source, it is not a calorie efficient means of living. As a means of survival in an emergency or crisis such as those faced by the Donner party or the Uruguayan rugby team perhaps. But if things get that bad we have far more to worry about than our neighbor looking at us as their next meal.

      Many (at least those with common sense) have been saying for years we have far more to worry about from cooling than we do from warming. If the planet is heading into the cooling phase it appears to be entering then we also have plenty to be concerned about from all the “solutions” people have been trying to shove at us to fix their warming bogeyman.

      We have a lot of other s–t to worry about before cannibalism is going to be a concern.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      A new volcano could pose a threat larger than last year’s air-traffic paralysing eruption in Iceland, according to experts.
      Seismologists are nervously watching rumblings beneath a much more powerful Icelandic volcano call Katla, which could spew an ash cloud that will make the 2010 eruption look tame by comparison.
      Brooding over rugged moss-covered hills on Iceland’s southern edge, Katla is a much bigger beast than the nearby Eyjafjallajokul volcano, which spewed ash all over Europe for several weeks in an eruption that local scientist Pall Einarsson describes nonetheless as ‘small.’
      ‘It is definitely showing signs of restlessness,’ said Einarsson, a professor of geophysics at the University of Iceland.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2048681/Iceland-volcano-New-eruption-dwarf-2010.html
      Shall we scorn the proposals to AVERT volcanic winter???
      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nvSG3nbwTJU/TikXuPeac1I/AAAAAAAAAvg/gQthSGp13JQ/s1600/volcanic+crater+cap+2.jpg


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Evil Denier

    To all warmistas on this thread:

    Even Hansen admits that the skeptics have won!

    Maybe, just maybe, we have the evidence. The PR Agencies – well, they run alarmist blogs and NGO campaigns. Funding from Big Oil? Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Exxon-Mobil spend billions more promoting clean/green energy than the trivial amounts (if any) that they give to skeptics.

    We’ve still won. Even the (expletive-laden) Goracle agrees. And Jim!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Evil Denier

    Oh, and the first reaction of the University of Easy Access when the leaked emails (Climategate) appeared was to hire a PR firm.
    M&M have yet to do so. Mosher (a convinced luke-warmer), horrified, likewise.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Evil Denier

      Easy Access is said to apply to the female (and, to be PC, also, undoubtedly, the LBGT) students. S**** yourself senseless at Norwich Poly – become a Climate ‘Scientist’.
      Even Jim Hansen agrees that you’ve lost! Not surprisingly. The scam has been exposed.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Evil Denier

        It’s been pointed out that ‘Norwich Poly’ may be unnecessarily derogatory – as well a historically inaccurate. Still, hardly Russell Group, what?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mike W

    The_Borg
    October 11, 2011 at 5:17 pm · Reply
    So when sceptic start seriously critiquing their mates’ utter rubbish we might actually sit up and consider. Until then zzzzzzzzzzzz

    Good point..but just saying something is dross,,and pointing out why it is actually dross are different things..
    Anyone can do the former..
    And..when I see CAGW supporters start to point out all the mistakes/tricks and games that have been mentioned on this site and others..caused by CAGW scientists and the IPCC..your point will be valid..but it will not happen will it. :)
    Now it is down to both sides waving peer reviewed papers at each other..how droll..
    Meanwhile..the CAGW supporters should be happy..we in Australia are getting a CO2 tax..yeah..the weather,,sorry climate will be better in several hundred years according to flannery..(if all the countries of the world limit their co2 emissions..)
    And a CO2 trading scheme..in a few more years..fantastic..
    The CAGW meme has won.. :)
    Collective enviromental guilt will be fixed..
    Literally trillions of $$$ will be spent to try and control the climate..and we will know the effects from this money in several hundred to a thousand years..
    The economic bankruptcy of economies will not matter..it never was important was it to the CAGW supporters..just as long as it looked like we are doing something..
    Why am I reminded of king canute… :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Nothing new there Mike, it is always about doing something so they can feel good about themselves. It is always a case of “we must act now” regardless of whether or not the “solutions” is worse then the perceived problem.

      Thinking it through and determining if the “solution” is in fact a solution or will in fact cause more problems never occurs to them. To do so would mean not acting now and now is all they really understand. Claims of “for the children” and “looking towards the future” are just that, claims. Because they don’t get the gratification they need in that manner, they must have it now.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    The_Borg

    Mike W – fair enuff. But let’s not confound a whole bunch of issues. Australia getting a carbon tax isn’t a good idea. Why – unilateral action doesn’t make much sense. And we all know those arguments. Does Gillard et al really believe in the science – who knows. But probably not – it’s simply an “issue” in a tightly balanced coalition of minorities. Will the Australian economic sky fall in – or will it simply be lead in the economic saddle bags – well we might see…. but won’t the LNP remove the tax.

    Why label AGW as CAGW – it’s simply confining the debate to the hysterical which is Jo’s campaigning style. So will AGW be horrifically CAGW-ish or simply mildly CAGW-ish? Will there be winners and losers.

    There is more than a good case for AGW – but the science is not perfect – we do know that a small temperature shift such as the MWP was associated with global megadroughts (and example). So changing the planet’s energy balance is not something we should think is risk free. And uncontrolled increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases long term is not without risk.

    But how are we served with bogus debates – and really poor science like espoused by many sceptics. In fact you can say anything and it will be accepted as long as it puts the boot into AGW by CO2. Anything crackpot idea is fine – no matter how stupid is OK.

    So the indefensible is defended. And if you lot are the white knights in the debate you have to be holier than holy. Or you have simply joined the ranks of the opposition in the other trenches using the same methods. So it ends up about which flag or football team you support – not truth or quality in science.

    Did two random pick from Jo’s 900 list and I got – Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)
    (Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)
    - David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox

    WHAT – a non-published article submitted is now a cite – YOU ARE KIDDING ME !

    and

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
    (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
    - Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    YES WELL – ENOUGH SAID EH?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Did two random pick from Jo’s 900 list and I got – Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)
      (Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)
      - David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox

      WHAT – a non-published article submitted is now a cite – YOU ARE KIDDING ME !

      Apparently you are kidding yourself as you have failed to read the notes preceeding the list,

      “Counting Method: Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers or as rebuttals to other published papers.”

      Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
      (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
      - Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

      YES WELL – ENOUGH SAID EH?

      This paper was peer-reviewed in a science journal.

      Not to mention there was nothing “random” about either of your selections. You brought up references to two of the most attacked papers on the list.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mike W

    John Brookes
    October 12, 2011 at 12:51 am · Reply
    As for Deltoid, Skeptical Science, Tamino, Real Climate, etc, the reason they don’t have as many posts as, say, WUWT, is that things of importance happen slowly in science.

    John….there have been several web sites pointing out the problems with unScepticalScience” recently which you appear to have missed..
    “things of importance” like honesty/transparency happen very slowly there….mendacious games and “lost” replies appear tp be the norm there now days which is embarrassing….. :)
    I look forward to “theBorg” criticising it for this as well..LOL.
    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Hey Th_Borg

    Australia getting a carbon tax isn’t a good idea.

    Welcome brother.. :)

    but won’t the LNP remove the tax.

    Not without the greens supporting them in the senate..which will never happen.

    Why label AGW as CAGW – it’s simply confining the debate to the hysterical which is Jo’s campaigning style.

    Yes..I admit jo`s amusing dissection of the “science” can annoy some people.
    The media..and many scientists who have become activists use terminology that implies or states..a catastrophe is happening now or will happen in the future..and we must spend trillions to stop it.Criticise them for their language not me for using it. :)

    There is more than a good case for AGW

    Yes..the majority of people sceptical of CAGW dont argue that mute point.
    But the question is..to what extent.When i see articles in the papers quoting scientists here stating that an increase in CO2 is causing X..whenever I ask the scientists politely how they tell the difference between natural variations/natural co2 and other factors..they often say no one can..but they just assume that Co2 is the main driver..and often their own models are based on IPCC models..and thats it..nothing more.. they now think the models are reality..thats what many find scary as hell.
    A model..based on another group of models(IPCC)+any variation you like in the enviroment=reality and the future.
    And thats post modern science.

    But how are we served with bogus debates – and really poor science like espoused by many sceptics.

    I agree..and lousy science espoused by people like Hansen due to not further the CAGW cause very well either.

    In fact you can say anything and it will be accepted as long as it puts the boot into AGW by CO2. Anything crackpot idea is fine – no matter how stupid is OK.

    Yep..and crackpot articles that manage to segue from sasquatch to climate change deniers are a classic example of crackpot thinking..and thousands of articles in the mainstream and uncritical media that try and link anything that happens on earth is related to an increase in CO2 is brilliant scientific journalism..yep.
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    So the indefensible is defended.

    Yes..but Hansens`s University will not release the emails and keep spending money to stop the information from becoming public……is that what you meant. ? :)

    not truth or quality in science.

    Straw meet Mann.. :)
    It has always been about the truth in science..thats why sites like this mock it..
    There are cranks on both sides of the debate..the money is on CAGW.

    YES WELL – ENOUGH SAID EH?

    cough cough..
    Yep..ya got me..2 killers :) but lets not forget
    http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/06/dirty-laundry-ii-contaminated-sediments/
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/14/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iv/
    Many killers..
    More than enough said I think… :)
    peace..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Wilson

    John B

    Actually I agree with some of what you say – right up to the point where you admit “regional climate modelling is still a bit suspect.”

    A bit suspect? By which you mean, “have NO demonstrated skill whatsoever, on any temporal or geographical scale.” There, fixed that for you.

    You also fail to explain why this positive feedback, (which you admit has not been quantified or understood, but are nevertheless certain it is positive) has yet to kick in – I mean, 0.8 degrees in 150 years – some feedback! It seems pretty clear that those “real skeptics” who suggest the CO2 sensitivity is 1 degree or less have some powerful observational evidence on their side


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    I have to agree with Jo that Darren is a nice bloke.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    I was puzzled to see in this article that Freeman Dyson is taken to be a credentialled “denier”.

    He isn’t.

    Dyson says:
    “one of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”

    Dyson also says”:
    “my objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much,”

    In other words, Dyson,
    a) Does not deny in any way shape or form the reality of AGW
    b) Freely admits that he does not have relevant credentials

    The problem with all this “scepticism” is that it is invariabily supported by faulty logic, poor analysis, and/or anti-facts, which should be enough to convince any normal person that this “scepticism” is not very credible.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Congratulations on cherry picking.

      Dyson was absolutely, unmistakably a skeptic. He did not agree with models, or the consensus. He often said “we don’t know” — which means he is 100% skeptical of the “90% certain” claim of the IPCC.

      “we don’t only have to worry about warming. We also have to worry about cooling, and it could very well be the climate gets colder. Nobody knows, and there are many things we should be doing to prepare for that and they’re not all that expensive, but what I think is absurd, what I disagree with very strongly, is the idea that climate is predictable, that we can sort of do things 100 years in advance knowing what is going to happen. That is just not… That is just not the way it is.” Freeman Dyson

      “When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.” Freeman Dyson

      The interviewer calls Dyson a skeptic. Dyson doesn’t disagree.
      Interviewer: “Your politics are generally described as left of center. Here’s an estimate: you probably have the highest IQ of any climate skeptic. This has caused a great deal of consternation in the scientific community and in the activist community–that you are unwilling to be on the bandwagon of climate change. This has caused a great deal of consternation in the scientific community and in the activist community–that you are unwilling to be on the bandwagon of climate change. What have been some of the costs to you? ”
      Dyson: “Really very little. I’m not suffering from this.”


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dagfinn

        Hmmm…wouldn’t this place Judith Curry as a skeptic as well, given her blogging about IPCC overconfidence? The last time I forced myself to read Joe Romm, he was still not calling her a denier, just a “confusionist”.

        Just thinking out loud. As long as there is not agreed definition of “climate skeptic”, it’s hard to make a firm distinction. This only underlines the idiocy of demonizing everyone who disagrees. Would I be considered an evil denier if I said it’s only 89% certain? ;-)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        Why do you keep saying “was”?

        Have you killed him?


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Lets look at Dyson’s credentials,

      Freeman J. Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College, UK (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University, UK (1945), Operations Research, R.A.F. Bomber Command, UK (1943-1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University (1947–1948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Center for Theoretical Studies (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics, Wolf Foundation of Herzlia, Israel (1981), National Books Critics Circle Award – Non-Fiction (1984), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, Phi Beta Kappa Society (1988), Honorary Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1989), Foreign Associate of the Academy of Sciences, Paris, France (1989), Member, National Research Council Commission on Life Sciences (1989-1991), Britannica Award (1990), Matteucci Medal, National Academy of Sciences dei Quaranta, Italy (1990), Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers (1991), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Montgomery Fellow, Dartmouth College (1994), Wright Prize, Harvey Mudd College (1994), Antonio Feltrinelli International Prize, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy (1996), Lewis Thomas Prize, Rockefeller University (1996), Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, American Physical Society (1999), Rydell Professor, Gustavus Adolphus College (1999), Honorary Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Templeton Prize (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), Page-Barbour lecturer, University of Virginia (2004), Member, committee on Next Generation Biowarfare (2004-2005), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), 21 Honorary Degrees

      He appears more than qualified to understand the subject.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Craig,

      Freeman Dyson is a dormant member of my forum.

      He is a well credentialed skeptic.He has expressed skepticism on the modeling claims.

      You will need to show that you did not misquote him,by giving us the links to those alleged quotes you posted.

      Jo Nova did for hers.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        Freeman Dyson:
        “One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”

        http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

        Clearly, Dyson is not a “denier” in any way, shape, or form.

        He doesn’t deny that CO2 produced by human activity traps heat and is warming the planet. He just doesn’t believe the models.

        The term “denier” is generally reserved for people who deny reality, not for people who question analyses and conclusions as Dyson did.

        The fact you have to use Dyson as an example of a “denier” who is “credentialled” (when he is neither of these things in relation to climate science) is exactly the kind of thing that rings any genuine sceptic’s alarm bells.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          From your Link:

          Everyone agrees that the increasing abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has two important consequences, first a change in the physics of radiation transport in the atmosphere, and second a change in the biology of plants on the ground and in the ocean. Opinions differ on the relative importance of the physical and biological effects, and on whether the effects, either separately or together, are beneficial or harmful. The physical effects are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind-strength and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase “global warming”. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading.

          He is strongly minimizing the warming impact of CO2 to very small areas of the world.He does not believe that it causes global warming.Just some local warming is all CO2 could do.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            …and he’s wrong: he hasn’t published anything in this area and he doesn’t base his opinions on the literature.

            Like his other opinions on jetpacks and flying cars, it’s all science fiction. As he freely admits.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          BobC

          Craig Thomas
          Clearly, Dyson is not a “denier” in any way, shape, or form.

          You are the only one who has used that term with regard to him. Talk about a strawman…

          He doesn’t deny that CO2 produced by human activity traps heat and is warming the planet. He just doesn’t believe the models.

          Since the entire alarmist agenda is based on believing the models, I would say that puts Dyson firmly in the “skeptic” camp.

          The term “denier” is generally reserved for people who deny reality, not for people who question analyses and conclusions as Dyson did.

          How naive are you, anyway? The term “denier” is commonly used for anyone who doubts the alarmist agenda.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Er, Bob, why don’t you read Jo’s article before commenting?

            This is what she wrote:

            ““Deniers” include guys like the revered Freeman Dyson,”.

            FAIL.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Craig Thomas
            October 17, 2011 at 2:51 pm
            Er, Bob, why don’t you read Jo’s article before commenting?

            This is what she wrote:

            ““Deniers” include guys like the revered Freeman Dyson,”.

            FAIL.

            Joanne used “scare quotes” around “Denier” in the conventional sense to mean that she didn’t accept the designation (which you should already know, if you read much here). She obviously doesn’t claim that Dyson denies anything.

            (My use of quotes around “denier” above are an example of the use-mention distinction — I’m refering to the word “denier” itself, and not someone who is a denier.)

            Your (quoted) use of “denier”:

            Clearly, Dyson is not a “denier” in any way, shape, or form.

            appeared to indicate that you thought Jo had accused Dyson of denying something, which she did not. Your following statement confirmed this interpretation:

            He doesn’t deny that CO2 produced by human activity traps heat and is warming the planet. He just doesn’t believe the models.

            Hence, you were arguing against something Jo never implied — a strawman argument.

            My statement, however:

            You are the only one who has used that term with regard to him

            is technically correct, in that you were the only one who used the word to apply to Dyson. Since both you and Jo agree that it doesn’t describe Dyson, your further argument is groundless.

            Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said that “You are the only one who has suggested that “denier” applies to Dyson.”


            Report this

            00

  • #

    Tristan #14: Instead skeptics can name 1000 eminent scientists, 9,000 PhD’s, and 900 peer reviewed papers just for starters.

    A) All smaller numbers than those on the other side

    No. We can name 31500 scientists who disagree. You can name how many….?

    B) But that (or mentioning freeman dyson) would be an argument from authority anyway wouldn’t it?

    No. Yawn. I didn’t say we are right because we have more credentialed and experienced scientists. I said The Conversation was wrong to claim we have no credentials.

    If you are concerned about actual cases of Argument from Authority I take it you’ll be rushing to correct The Conversation, The climate Commission, the dept of Climate Change, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd… 100% of the Greens.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Tristan

      Come on Joanne, even the OISM petition project itself doesn’t claim 31000 ‘scientists’. Signatories needed at least a bachelors degree in one of many fields.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Tristan, follow the link to the petition project:

        31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
        including 9,029 with PhDs

        “Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States. “


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Tristan

        My bad, I didn’t know they redefined the word scientist. Since when does holding a b.s. make one a scientist?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Tristan

        You’re right Jo, I’m sorry I indicated you were making a misleading statement.

        It’s the OISM project that’s making the misleading statement, and surely you recognise that as well. A bachelor of science does not a scientist make.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          It is plain that you simply fail to understand that you made yourself look dumb in this comment section.

          Did you just suggest that 20,000 + scientists who SIGNED the petition were mislead?

          bwahahahahahahahaha!!!


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Tristan, I agree that there are better definitions of a scientist, especially since so many with climate science degrees make embarrassing errors of reasoning, and behave so unscientifically. People who hide data and methods from critics don’t deserve to be called a scientist.

          If you want to design a test, send it out to 500,000 potential scientists, mark them, and them survey those that qualify, I’ll be keen to report the results. Good luck with finding the funding to help you do a better job than the volunteers at the Petition Project (PP). (The PP BTW was a second separate effort to the other older OISM project you keep referring too, which I have not mentioned.)


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          Joanne

          Doran (2009) seems reasonable at first glance.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Peter Wilson

            You’re kidding, right? They sent out over 10,000 questionnaires with 2 deliberately vague questions, and whittled it down to 75 of 77 who answered yes to both – and this is the basis of the endlessly repeated “97% of scientists agree” claim!

            It’s garbage. At first glance, and in all subsequent examination, its an embarrassing piece of shallow rubbish, designed solely to generate that headline number.

            The fact that it passed peer review is a massive nail in the coffin of the credibility of “pal review” as practiced in climate “science”.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            I have no love for the 97.4% conclusion. It’s a little too precise for my liking. getting 75 out of 77 hits gives a 0.95CI of something like 93-99%.

            More interestingly to me, is that ~75% of non-publishing non-climatologist earth scientists answered ‘yes’ to
            “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
            and of the scientists who were actively publishing papers or climatologists the affirmative rate rose to ~88%.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            This paper has been heavily criticized in the peer-reviewed literature,

            - Comment on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”
            (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
            - Roland Granqvist

            In a summary of their survey on the opinion about global warming among Earth scientists (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman conclude that the debate on the role of human activity is largely nonexistent, and that the challenge is “how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers” and to the public.

            However, I argue that neither of these conclusions can be drawn from the survey. For example, one issue that is much discussed in the public debate is the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists, but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.”

            - Further Comment on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”
            (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
            - John Helsdon

            The feature article “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change,” by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), while interesting, has a primary flaw that calls their interpretation into question. In their opening sentence, the authors state that on the basis of polling data, “47% [of Americans] think climate scientists agree… that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming….” They then described the two-question survey they had posed to a large group of Earth scientists and scientifically literate (I presume) people in related fields. While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase “major cause” in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase “significant contributing factor.” There is a large difference between these two phrases.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Ask why is it so?

    Perhaps altering the molecular composition of the atmosphere will change the temperature of the Earth but the change may not be in the direction that the Warmists think. Simply put, increasing molecules that absorb short wave radiation will reduce the amount of radiation being absorbed by the surface (which is how the earth is heated i.e. the hottest part of the system is at the surface of the earth). Also with more molecules that can also absorb long wave radiation, even less will be directed back to the surface, again reducing the total amount of radiation the surface receives and thereby reducing the temperature of the earth. As we continue to have a steady increase in the CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last ten years global temperature records do not show a corresponding increase therefore it must be concluded that there are other factors involved hence real scientists on both sides are still looking for answers. If you really studied the theory that CO2 can actually generate enough heat to exceed the heat produced by the absorption of solar radiation by the surface of the earth and by that increase the temperature of the planet you would find a lot of holes in the theory and its the holes that creates the skeptic. If the evidence was indisputable there would be no debate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      You’ll actually find that this is well understood. The frequency profile of radiation incident on earth and leaving earth are very different, and it ends up that the atmosphere traps more long wave radiation leaving than it stops arriving.

      As for natural variability, most of that is probably heat going in and out of the oceans.

      As I said before, the basic science is well understood, but there is debate over the feedbacks. That there is a debate over the basic science is a bit of a mystery.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dagfinn

        I agree with about the mystery. I would say that skeptics have a tendency to attack the strongest parts of the rationale behind climate policy, and that seems like a huge strategic mistake if they actually have political aims. The really weak parts are the inflated claims about impacts, which have hardly any scientific merit. And the fact that current climate policy does not work and cannot work in the real world with its political constraints. As Roger Pielke Jr has amply demonstrated.

        “The paper argues that proposed Australian carbon policy proposals present emission reduction targets that will be all but impossible to meet without creative approaches to accounting as they would require a level of effort equivalent to the deployment of dozens of new nuclear power plants or thousands of new solar thermal plants within the next decade.” http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/evaluation-of-targets-and-timetables-of.html

        6 degrees C of temperature increase by 2100 is at least within the realm of possibility as I see it. Achieving current emissions targets is not, barring huge unexpected innovation in energy technology.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          I can’t imagine 6 degrees by the end of the century. That would be truly apocalyptic. I’d be surprised if it was much over 2 degrees – but then I guess I’d be very surprised at being 143 years old and still alive.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Dagfinn

            6 degrees certainly seems dramatic, but I think the reason it seems apocalyptic is that alarmists have been applying a heavy layer of fantasy on it. Like Mark Lynas’ book 6 degrees. I haven’t read it, but the description is all about sea level rise that cannot possibly occur on that time scale. And I believe Lynas himself has changed his mind about it.

            I think you would be pleasantly surprised at being 143 years old and still alive.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Ah! Deja vu. On 15 Feb 2006, “The Australian” published a letter from me that led to a retort on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog “THERE is an excellent argument for curbing the public statements of scientists like those from CSIRO, a former employer of mine. Scientists, like the public, cover a spectrum of beliefs, some of which are based on emotion rather than science. There are greenie scientists in CSIRO and there are honest ones. Human nature being what it is, there are private agendas pushed by CSIRO people that would make your jaw drop”.

    In 2005-6, I was criticised by many people for daring to suggest in a National forum that all was not right with Global Warming. At a guess, more than half of my original detractors have now changed their minds, many most emphatically.

    Lamentably, my personal effort has a setback with the passing of the Carbon Tax Act today. However, I’m not going to stop the criticisms. I’m not going into a corner to sulk. The best response to a setback is renewed effort. Get back on the horse that threw you and gallop even faster. It is probable that many others think this way and that the next year will see some developments that make the effort much more satisfactory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The_Borg

    “31,487 American scientists have signed this petition” says Jo.

    Will that be as good as the 900 paper list. Please !


    Report this

    00

    • #
      • #

        The misinformation continues, eg:
        “The IPCC AR4 WG1 report was written and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists. ”

        Only 62 read Chapter Nine of WG1, and not all of them agreed, and most of them had a conflict of interest. There goes another inflated number.

        Try again… name more unskeptical scientist than skeptical ones.

        Unskeptical science writes one long ad hom/argument from authority without blinking. Spot the difference between uSkS and a pagan festival: “hail the Gods who have the magical climate-science-degrees! Only they are gifted with The Insight into the Unknown Data they won’t release to mere mortal nuclear physicists and stupid neurosurgeons who are far too dumb to question Climate Gods.

        Team AGW was the one that said “we’re right because there is a consensus” which is 1, a logical error, and 2, wrong. Busted.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        “Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States. “

        I am sure John Cook missed this startling revelation.

        They tried to minimize the petition with a bunch of irrelevant attacks against it.

        Basic:

        The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.

        Intermediate:

        The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science.

        LOL,

        neither one is a rational statement.After all there are many scientists in the previous IPCC reports,who are not climatologists.

        In any case the petition was originally made as a stand against the Kyoto treaty in the late 1990′s.

        Again from John’s silly attack on the now 13 year old petition.

        The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with varying expertise in climate and related fields, and so having a list of over 30,000 scientists that rejected the WG1’s conclusions was a powerful meme that AGW skeptics and deniers could use to cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption. And in fact, this meme has become widespread in both legacy and new media today.

        Typically misleading bullcrap!

        Dr. Pielke writes:

        How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?

        EXCERPT:

        Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists.

        This has been known for a while.Yet YOU still do not know just how few people are true authors in the report.Read the rest of the link.To read Dr Trenberth’s candid statement about it.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Tel

        I checked the “ScepticalScience” website:

        At this point it’s literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM’s word that they’re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.

        That reminds me, has anyone ever seen an explanation of the adjustments made to the surface temperature in Darwin? I’ve been asking around on that one for about two years now (as have plenty of other people).

        You know, that Scientific Method thingy, documenting the process, independent scrutiny, reproducible results. Here’s hoping we see that some day.

        In other words, the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist.

        Fair point, 0.3% coverage is kind of on the low side, but it’s not exactly easy to get a major proportion of all science graduates to make the effort to study a question like AGW that needs a bit of reading to get up to speed. But here’s a laugh, the same article continues with this:

        The Pew survey was taken in early 2009 and asked over 2000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) their opinion on various scientific issues, including climate disruption. 84% of AAAS respondents felt that “warming is due to human activity” compared to only 10% who felt that “warming is due to natural causes.” The AAAS has over 10 million members, and the results of the survey are statistically valid for the entire population with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 2.5%.

        Hmmm, 2000 / 10000000 gives 0.02% coverage.

        So wait a minute here, this study has an order of magnitude less coverage than the OISM but because it have been pronounced “statistically significant” (by who? and how?) we can apparently trust this study a whole lot more. Come on, this is a leg pull right? First he cites low coverage as the reason not to trust a survey, then just a few paragraphs later he pulls up a survey with less than one tenth of the coverage and cites this as his own evidence?

        I do regularly follow these links that people suggest but when you hit a massive howler after five minutes reading it just gets tiresome.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Tristan

          Tel, unfortunately you’re comparing apples to oranges, but then again, so is SkS. The problem with petitions is that there are no denominators. Sure, 32000 people signed it, that’s a lot of people. Unfortunately that doesn’t tell us much about the proportion of people who agree with the petition’s statement or not. When there are ~10M science grads in the US since 1970, a petition is never going to be representative.

          That’s why (properly constructed) surveys are useful. You can obtain (with an error margin) the proportion of a population that agrees with a given premise.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Tel

            When you read http://www.pewclimate.org/ you see they are already firm believers, without a shadow of doubt in their minds. However, when you read http://www.pewresearch.org/ you get:

            The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It does not take positions on policy issues. Its work is carried out by these seven projects:

            then checking back to the charitable trust that is the source of all the Pew centers I see:

            The Pew Charitable Trusts holds itself to the highest standards of integrity, transparency and effectiveness. We have established policies to guide Pew’s activities, including a conflict of interest policy for our board and employees and a code of ethics. Employees of Pew are obliged to report any possible violations of these policies to ensure that Pew maintains its uncompromising standards in its mission to serve the public interest.

            But it doesn’t take much research to see that Pew are in fact blatantly partisan, and are running an obvious agenda. That leaves an organization that has an agenda, but also goes to some lengths to hide their agenda and pretend to be neutral, and claims transparency at the same time!

            Forgive me if I have trouble trusting such people… but I’m much rather deal with someone who makes no bones about what their position is, and why.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          Tel asked, “has anyone ever seen an explanation of the adjustments made to the surface temperature in Darwin? ”

          *I* have.
          There have been a series of papers published on this issue starting a couple of decades ago. It’s obviously a complex and interesting area.

          Four examples, and the reason I think are the most important for the lay-person in understanding this issue in Australia, would be:

          Torok and Nicholls (1996); a high-quality homogenisation for reliably monitoring climate trends and variability at annual and decadal timescales.

          Nicholls et al (1996); describing the 1 degree drop associated with new screening at measuring stations.

          Peterson et al. (1998); “…a suite of quality control tests are justified and documented …”

          Della-Marta & Collins (2003); updating the temperature record to take into account improvements in methods.

          Some excellent papers which comprehensively answer your question, Tel. If it *was* a question, of course…


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Tel

            I want an actual explanation of the particular adjustments in question. Not a general hand-waving discussion of the concept of homogenization.

            That’s the whole point of a process being reproducible. I believe there were four adjustments in all, the details are easily found at WUWT. In theory, each one of those adjustments should be documented, and traceable.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            But Tel, the methods for adjusting raws temperatures are formally documented in the academic literature.
            In what way can you possibly call that hand-waving?
            How about you actually read these papers?

            [It would help if you were to provide links to the said papers. Common courtesy. mod oggi]


            Report this

            00

    • #

      Borg, you have failed to make a single valid criticism of the list of 900+ peer-reviewed papers.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Robert

        Hey PT, good to see you’re still alive and kicking and ornery as ever. Always good fun watching those with reading comprehension issues try and argue with you over the papers.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Thanks, it is just the same nonsense repeated over and over because they understand how dangerous it is to their alarmist position for the public to learn that extensive peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Dagfinn

    I started wondering about the concept of fraud related to the yeti hunters in the original article. As you say the reason appears to be that they have no credentials, so they can’t call themselves scientists. I think this implies logically that Einstein was not a scientist when he originally developed the theory of relativity working at the Swiss Patent Office.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Here in the US, the yeti hunters have succeeded–they found the Obamanable Snowman hiding in the White House.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The_Borg

    Poptech – why make comments on the 900 papers when so many have already been debunked and ridiculed? Come on….

    Jo says “Team AGW was the one that said “we’re right because there is a consensus” which is 1, a logical error, and 2, wrong. Busted.”

    and the same goes for you too with your pretentious lists of supposed scientists and shonk papers. Rent-a-crowd commentaries.

    Face it – you’ll support any old sceptic argument no matter how silly it is.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      We are still waiting for something beyond your zero fact zone comment level.

      Why not rise to the challenge of Poptech’s comment?

      Borg, you have failed to make a single valid criticism of the list of 900+ peer-reviewed papers.

      Where are they fella?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      The_Borg

      Poptech – why make comments on the 900 papers when so many have already been debunked and ridiculed?

      Because they have not been “debunked”. Various papers on the list have been criticized and for each published criticism the author(s) of the paper have published a rebuttal. These rebuttals are included following the original paper on the list. The existence of a criticism does not make something “debunked”, though you would wish people to believe this.

      You have yet to make a valid argument.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Mr or Mrs Borg, the point of the 900 papers is to prove wrong yet another thread of Big Scare propaganda.

      The litany: “skeptics don’t have peer reviewed papers.”

      Just one more outright lie. We skeptics never claim that the large number of papers that support our case proves we’re right.

      Your team are the only ones making that embarrassing unscientific error.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Poptech – why make comments on the 900 papers when so many have already been debunked and ridiculed?

      Which ones?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      I am still waiting for your reply.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    REMINDER..
    Hey Gillard!..not a consipiracy theory?.heres the PROOF.(like the big one you put on the Australian people)

    ..The British lawyer who last week called for introducing international laws through the United Nations which would make it a crime against humanity to question the reality of man-made global warming has close ties with the Club of Rome – the ultra elitist organization which openly bragged of how it invented the climate change scare as a means of manipulating the global population to accept world government.
    British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins (pictured top) recently launched an initiative to have the UN put pressure on national governments to pass laws that would declare the mass destruction of ecosystems a crime against peace, punishable by the International Criminal Court.
    Under the guise of going after big corporations and polluters for the war crime of emitting the gas that humans exhale and plants breathe, the proposal would actually target individuals and people who merely express skepticism towards man-made global warming.
    “Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change,” reported the London Guardian.
    Some respondents to the Guardian article agreed that merely questioning whether man-made climate change was real should be criminalized – literally calling for the establishment of a UN-run thought police that would prosecute anyone who expressed dissent against the AGW belief system..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is really just a big strawman, isn’t it Jo?


    Report this

    00