159 comments

1. geoffreyenglandApril 24, 2014 at 11:37 am

   The corridors of power are cluttered with simpletons luddites and fools.One Tony Abbott being Chief amongst them.

2. mikestasseApril 24, 2014 at 12:43 pm

   The moron doesn’t even know the difference between albino and albedo…….

   FAIL.

3. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 12:45 pm

   I noticed that mikestasse but I copied it from the Lateline transcript and haven’t rewatched the video to see what he actually said so it could well be the person transcribing that didn’t know. I’ll have another listen.

4. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 12:48 pm

   He did say albedo…transcription is wrong. 4:37 on video.

5. KerriApril 24, 2014 at 1:03 pm

   Well written again Kaye. But a correction! Maurice Newman referred to “ALBEDO”.
   Albedo is the process that involves reflective surfaces of the earth reflecting the sun’s heat back into space and therefore reducing global temperatures. I did a year in Environmental Science at Uni 30 years ago when the concern regarding albedo was that with polar ice caps and glaciers melting albedo is reduced and hence global warming. This would have a feedback effect where each melt would result in a rise in temperature which would then cause melt and that would cause a further rise etc. Etc. The concern being, once started, how do you stop it.. Newman’s reference was somewhat accurate (though I hate to say it) but he was talking about cloud reflection. As far as I can tell cloud has a minimal effect. Ice however being shiny and white has a greater effect. Incidentally water absorbs light from the sun so it is not counted with Albedo.

6. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 1:12 pm

   Yes thanks for that Kerri. I went back and checked the video…. it was lateline’s transcriber who got it wrong rather than Mr Newman. I have put a note into the article to reflect that.

   Thanks also for the explanation of the term in an easy to understand way.

7. mikestasseApril 24, 2014 at 1:16 pm

   Thanks Kaye Lee…… I saw it elsewhere too, so thought he had said it, obviously the same transcript..

8. EgalitarianApril 24, 2014 at 1:49 pm

   Reserve your praise for Clive Palmer as far as I know he doesn’t believe in man made climate change.He mainly has self interest motives for doing most things.He’ll ruffle some feathers but when it comes to the crunch; he’ll sidle up with Liberals.

9. diannaartApril 24, 2014 at 2:07 pm

   Another interesting read Kaye Lee.

   I concur with Egalitarian. Clive loves throwing spanners into things – that’s part of his M.O. Hockey and his ilk use fear to manipulate, Palmer uses chaos.

   Note, he is not calling for the money from Direct Action be spent on actual climate change mitigation – he is cannily aiming this largesse at Pensioners. As I have said previously; I will trust Clive Palmer when he closes all his mines and mining interests and plants trees – by which I mean invest in renewable technology.

10. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    I understand what both of you are saying but Clive is like many larrikin kids I taught in the past. Sometimes, giving them responsibility and expecting them to be good can bear fruit. As we get older we change. Clive might just take to the idea of being the people’s champion, in which case we have to encourage him to remember about climate change whilst pointing out that carbon pricing is the most efficient method to take action. I also remind him about his tourism investment and the long term possibilities if he gets in on the ground floor of the renewable energy industry. Clive doesn’t like opposition but he might just respond to massaging. I don’t hold out high hopes but I work with what I’ve got.

11. paul walterApril 24, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    You strike a nerve.

    You have certainly left enough cognitive space for a poster like meself,

    This concerning a comment I’ll make over his zionist lobby antics and the gormlessness of first Rudd than Gillard in dealing with him when he was at the ABC and in general terms, the Lobby itself.

    The rot set in very early when Rudd and Conroy ignored an election promise to return the staff member to the ABC board.. how much damage to public broadcasting could have been prevented if some in the Labor top echelon could have got past the rightist prejudice against public broadcasting and Murdoch not been allowed to tun rampant without fear of contradiction from broadsheet journalism

12. mars08April 24, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    It’s 2014, and suddenly we’re ALL Americans…

    The Flat-Earth Society Has Arisen Again

    Over 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real and that human beings are causing it by burning fossil fuels. There is no debate. Climate change is a fact, just like the Earth revolving around the sun is a fact, and anyone who says otherwise should be treated like a crazy person.

    But the opposite is true: in some circles, denying climate change is about as mainstream as it gets, and for Republicans it’s the default position. According to some estimates, around 58 percent of Congressional Republicans deny the existence of man-made climate change including 100 percent of last year’s freshman Republicans in the House of Representatives. That leads to some crazy things. Just yesterday, for example, all four Republican candidates for North Carolina’s Senate seat said “no” when asked by a debate moderator if climate change was a fact. One of them even went so far as to say “God controls the climate.”

    That’s right. While people in the scientific community are debating whether or not human beings will go extinct within this century as a result of climate change, the only answer some people in the Republican Party have to the question of climate change is “God controls the climate.” This is ridiculous…

    http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/04/flat-earth-society-has-arisen-again

13. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    Let’s keep going and say what if they had the courage to stand up to the miners and introduce a decent mining tax and stop fossil fuel subsidies. Or the courage to treat asylum seekers with compassion and dignity. Or the courage to cancel Howard’s ridiculous fighter plane extravagance. Or the courage to allow gay marriage or euthanasia. Lobby groups and polls dictate politics. Oh for someone of courage and truth. Even the good ones only tinker round the edges as they prostitute themselves to the popularity paradigm of party politics.

14. lawrencewinderApril 24, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    Palmer is only a self interested coal miner… Newman is only self interested capitalist ..Rabbutt-the-Hun is only their pawn facilitating the last stages Australia becoming the White-trash of Asia.

15. KeithApril 24, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    It becomes a worry when the points he brought up in relation to climate change have been debunked numerous times. The tin foil hat is very appropriate.
    He knows better than NASA, CSIRO, BOM,and literally hundreds of other Agencies.
    He obviously doesn’t respect experts which logically means his opinion on economic matters is worthless.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/23/3429721/last-month-was-the-fourth-hottest-march-on-record/

16. Greg OApril 24, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    It would seem that qualifications in climate science are important to you Kaye Lee. I would note that regardless of Roy Spencer’s apparently misguided religious views, he invented satellite temperature analysis, so perhaps deserves a little cred for that? Roy Spencer and John Christy were the first two scientists to develop a method for getting temperatures from satellites, and the pair won NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society’s “Special Award.”

    But regardless of Mr Spencer, surely you would find it difficult to dispute Judith Curry’s qualifications? Here is her analysis of the latest IPCC report: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/

    Some highlights:

    On sea level rise – “It is seen that the rate of rise during 1930-1950 was comparable to, if not larger than, the value in recent years. This IPCC’s analysis does not support an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the latter 20th century, and hence the data does not support the IPCC’s conclusion of a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.”

    On Climate Sensitivity – “It is significant that the AR5 does not cite a best estimate, whereas the AR4 cites a best estimate of 3oC. The stated reason for not including a best estimate in the AR5 is the substantial discrepancy between observation-based estimates of ECS (lower), versus estimates from climate models (higher). Figure 1 of Box 12.2 in the AR5 WG1 report shows that 11 out of 19 observational-based studies of ECS show values below 1.5oC in their ranges of ECS probability distribution.
    Hence the AR5 reflects greater uncertainty and a tendency towards lower values of the ECS than the AR4.”

    On the hiatus in warming – “After expecting an increase of 0.2oC per decade in the early decades of the 21st century from the AR4 statements, the rate of warming over the past 15 years is only ~0.05C.
    The IPCC AR5 bases its projection for the period 2016-2036 of 0.10 to 0.23oC per decade on expert judgment, rather than on the climate model results
    The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for the hiatus in warming.”

    On sea ice – “The increase in Antarctic sea ice is not understood and is not simulated correctly by climate models. The Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies. Hence confident statements about attribution of the Arctic sea ice decline since 1979 do not seem to be supported by understanding, in spite of the simulations by climate models that reproduce the decline.”

    She also wrote a very good piece on the “certainty” evident in much discussion of climate change. To quote: “The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to science, and misleading to policy deliberations.

    I would also like to comment on the ‘good loser’ issue. I wholeheartedly agree with Dyson. In the annals of climate science, how would you characterize Mann’s defense of the hockey stick? Other good or bad losers that you can think of in climate science? The biggest problem is premature declaration of ‘winners’ by consensus to suit political and policy maker objectives.” http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/21/the-case-for-blunders/

    Cheers.

17. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Judith Curry???? You’re kidding me, right?

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry

18. PeterKApril 24, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    Question: Do you actually believe the BS you spew???

19. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    Greg you really need to read up on the people you quote. They use discredited papers, second-hand info from America’s favourite tv weatherman, and non-peer-reviewed articles published by fruitcakes like Monckton .

    Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it’s possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station.

    The IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010 ).

    The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 – global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino. Natural forcings mean we should be in a cooling cycle – we are not. Cherry-picking short time spans while ignoring trends is a denier’s modus operandi.

    The Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica has shown strong warming over the same period that sea ice has been increasing. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean (specifically the region where Antarctic sea ice forms) has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it’s warming faster than the global trend. This warming trend is apparent in satellite measurements of temperature trends over Antarctica:

    There are several contributing factors to the increase in sea ice. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

    Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

20. KeithApril 24, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    Greg, the news about Antarctica is not particularly good, a very recent paper
    http://www.dw.de/antarctic-glaciers-retreat-unstoppable/a-17363380

21. LOVOApril 24, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    Greg seem’s noice 😀
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

22. EgalitarianApril 24, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    Lets face it The Conservatives want to ignore Science.And just soldier on paving a way for the rich to make more money. Screw the workers. Thereby making many peoples lives miserable. They are Amoral.

23. Michael TaylorApril 24, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    Sorry about that, LOVO, but you were caught up in spam. 😳

24. mars08April 24, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Lets face it The Conservatives want to ignore Science…

    Not quite right. Show them some shiny gadget like the F35, and they’ll immediately fall in love with it!

25. mars08April 24, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    ….because it would be irresponsible to put future generations at risk!

26. Greg OApril 24, 2014 at 7:13 pm

    Guys, Judith Curry is quoting here directly from the IPCC report, so attack her personally or discredit other sources all you like, but she is simply saying exactly what the IPCC report is saying, and is not the IPCC infallible?

    Your link to sourcewatch is hardly credible Kaye, you would agree there are not a lot of warmists on their list, so basically every sceptic is suspect, every warmist is to be taken as read. Hardly fair and balanced. But given you linked to a dodgy source, here is the Wikipedia info on Judith Curry. Surely if you will only accept the opinions of climate scientists, she qualifies? If she does not, I am led to conclude that in your mind only those who agree with you are credible, as opposed to only those who show evidence as to why their statements/opinions/hypotheses might be correct?

    “Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.[1]

    Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

    Curry graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography. She earned her PhD degree in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.[2]

    Curry is a professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has held this position since 2002.[3] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advise and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[3][4] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[3][5]

    Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[3][5] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[6][7] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[8]

    Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[9] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[10] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[11] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[11]

    Climate change.
    While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[12] she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[12] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[12]

    In February 2010 Curry published an essay called “On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust” on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[13] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as “Climategate”.[12]

    In September 2010, Curry created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. In the site’s “About” section, the blog’s purpose is stated as “Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.”[3]”

27. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    Greg Hunt released the Emissions Reduction Fund White Paper. The very first thing in it is a disclaimer that does not fill one with confidence.

    “Disclaimer

    Whilereasonableeffortshavebeenmadetoensurethatthecontentsofthispublicationarefactuallycorrect,the Commonwealthdoesnotacceptresponsibilityfortheaccuracyorcompletenessofthecontents,andshallnotbeliableforanylossordamagethatmaybeoccasioneddirectlyorindirectlythroughtheuseof,orrelianceon,thecontentsofthispublication.”

    Does that mean, we know this is bullshit and if you believe it it’s your own silly fault?

28. Andy HurleyApril 24, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    If you would like to read a balanced view of the Scientific approach , you should read the CRU emails. I assume that as a well balanced person you have done that ,yes?
    For those of you with an interest here is a site showing the mendacity, duplicity and outright ignobility of the leeches that want to run your life.

    http://www.michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

    You worship a false god Kaye, your priests are corrupt, and most of the accolytes like yourself, simply refuse to acknowledge that observation has overtaken modular science.Not one single model predicted the hiatus, therefore all models are WRONG.
    Please do not tell me there has been no pause , because then you are in conflict with the latest IPCC report.

29. Greg OApril 24, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    From Wikipedia, which is probably substantially more credible than your link Kaye:

    Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.[1]

    Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

    Curry graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography. She earned her PhD degree in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.[2]

    Career[edit]
    Curry is a professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has held this position since 2002.[3] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advise and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[3][4] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[3][5]

    Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[3][5] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[6][7] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[8]

    Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[9] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[10] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[11] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[11]

    Climate change[edit]
    While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[12] she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[12] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[12]

    In February 2010 Curry published an essay called “On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust” on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[13] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as “Climategate”.[12]

    In September 2010, Curry created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. In the site’s “About” section, the blog’s purpose is stated as “Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.”[3]

30. mars08April 24, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    Kaye Lee says:

    …self-appointed expert on climate change regardless of the fact that he has absolutely no scientific qualifications whatsoever.

    That doesn’t seem to be much of an issue with the Australian public, does it? But I wonder what the reaction would have been if channel SEVEN made him Chief Sports Reporter. Some controversy perhaps?

31. Greg OApril 24, 2014 at 8:03 pm

    Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.[1]

    Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

    Contents [hide]
    1 Education
    2 Career
    2.1 Climate change
    3 References
    4 External links
    Education[edit]
    Curry graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography. She earned her PhD degree in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.[2]

    Career[edit]
    Curry is a professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has held this position since 2002.[3] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advise and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[3][4] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[3][5]

    Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[3][5] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[6][7] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[8]

    Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[9] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[10] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[11] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[11]

    Climate change[edit]
    While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[12] she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[12] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[12]

    In February 2010 Curry published an essay called “On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust” on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[13] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as “Climategate”.[12]

    In September 2010, Curry created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. In the site’s “About” section, the blog’s purpose is stated as “Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.”[3]

32. Greg OApril 24, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    So you have blocked me.

33. mars08April 24, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    Never mind Greg… it looks like Andy has snatched the baton and is running hard!

34. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 8:25 pm

    Andy I don’t do worship…waste of time and money. I do however try to keep up with the science. I looked at your link. What is it? Who is Michael Kelly? Seemed to be ramblings that went on forever. I prefer peer-reviewed scientific papers. I always check the validity of sources unlike the deniers.

35. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

36. Andy HurleyApril 24, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    These are the hacked emails from CRU of East Anglia.
    They demonstrate more than adequately that a cabal was in place to ensure that only the “right” sort of information was released to the “right” people. A shameful episode in the history of Science.
    Read it , look at the emails , look at the cover ups , the sometime attempts by other scientists to question or verify data couched in fear and subsequently binned so as not to upset the bandwagon.
    As a journalist you should be exposing these people big time.
    Rather than award a tin hat prize to some poor sap expressing his opinion, try the one on your self , you know the pointy one with a big D on it.
    It is hardly news these days , but not enough has been done to punish the authors ,Scientists all, who conspired to hide bad news or science.
    In the real World , conspiracy to defraud might be the charge.

37. Andy HurleyApril 24, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    Taken out of context??
    http://www.di2.nu/foia/0880476729.txt
    Read that. This is flat out criticism from one scientist to another that he has overstepped the mark on his alarmist ravings.

38. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 8:50 pm

    I am not interested in debating this with you. There have been a lot of independent investigations done into the scientific report. You are looking at stolen private emails. Read the experts’ findings from the investigations.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

39. Andy HurleyApril 24, 2014 at 8:54 pm

    OK , fingers in the ears and say nanananananaanana.
    How about these real statements issued in the past :-

    45 years of fear mongering bs:
    “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” -Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

    “By the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe [will occur] which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program

    “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989

    “If Canada proceeds [with its tar sands oil development] sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction.” -James Hansen, NASA, 2012

    Seriously , peer reviewed? Stood the test of time?

40. Andy HurleyApril 24, 2014 at 8:58 pm

    You are no doubt aware that the person in charge of non skeptical Science is a cartoonist right?
    Ok, I shall leave you alone , I did not wish to rain on your parade ,but if you are going to talk the talk , you had better be aware of the facts, not the cherry picked nonsense SS (aptly named) puts up.

41. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    I suggest you move past your collection of stuff from decades ago and start reading the last 5 years of research. The only uncertainty is just how bad its going to get and how quickly it will happen. Statements from many years ago taken out of context, as you are doing, mean nothing. Show me the science to back up what you are saying, not some stuff you’ve been fed by a blogger….sounds like Watts…am I correct?

42. Andy HurleyApril 24, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    I spend more time on places like SS , note you failed to allow my last message through on that particular group, and scientific pages than on WUWT. Hotwhopper is a particular favorite site ,Sou at least has a sense of humour. The crazies there are a real credit to the consensus .SARC.

43. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 9:12 pm

    I have not blocked or removed any comments. I am assuming the spam filter caught them. Put your conspiracy theories away.

    If’, like me, you prefer science, why aren’t you providing links to scientific papers backing up your case. Why the concentration on gossip and conspiracy. Show me some science.

44. Andy HurleyApril 24, 2014 at 9:18 pm

    Show me yours and I will show you mine.
    Skeptical Science Handbook , response 25?
    Show me a single peer reviewed paper which proves categorically that man made CO2 is or will be the cause of catastrophic global warming . : p

45. Andy HurleyApril 24, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    Spam filter seems highly selective! Show me the peer reviewed paper which categorically states that Anthropogenic CO2 is or will be the cause of catastrophic global warming.
    Highly likely, it is considered, and it must be the case , do not count .opinions are not science, consensus is not science either , but good luck with your career , hope you can backtrack pretty quickly because ,on the global warming issue , time is not on your side.

46. Michael TaylorApril 24, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    Andy Hurley,

    A couple of your comments were caught in spam, which often happens with Facebook links. Nobody had blocked you.

47. Möbius EckoApril 24, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    So Andy doesn’t answer and proves to everyone he has nothing but hot air. Oh so typical.

48. Greg OApril 24, 2014 at 9:33 pm

    This blog will wither and die. There is no interest in debating ideas.

49. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 9:37 pm

    Then why do you keep popping back Greg? And I haven’t seen you or Andy propose any ideas…did I miss them?

50. KeithApril 24, 2014 at 9:46 pm

    Andy, any number of Agencies agree that humans have caused climate change since the Industrial Revolution http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

    NASA provides some data about what has been happening.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

    Epidemiological issues have been occurred in Northern Canada, Peru, and Sweden created through warming.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-disease-peru/

    Glaciers are in retreat in Greenland and Antarctica at present.

    Temperatures are still increasing

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/wmo-temperature-decades-590×389.png

51. Möbius EckoApril 24, 2014 at 9:51 pm

    Ideas? I thought this was about science and those who are trying to discredit it.

52. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    Rather than posting a huge slab from Wikipedia about Judith Curry, how about you read what climate scientists have to say about her and her work. Go to the following heading on the link I provided and read on about her methods. She says defiantly that there has been a pause in warming since 1998. When asked for scientific evidence of that she had to admit that the time frame was not long enough to be statistically significant.

    Criticisms from climate scientists

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry

53. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    Thank you Keith. Still awaiting some sort of scientific response from Andy or Greg but they don’t seem to want to have THAT sort of discussion.

54. Stephen TardrewApril 24, 2014 at 10:36 pm

    Oh my God. Time to shoot myself.

    30 years of intense application to understanding climate science has just been thrown down the drain by a bunch of non-scientists quoting pseudo-scientists who lack in depth knowledge outside of their fields.

    Tweedle dum and tweedle dee I hope you understand you belong to a small minority of contrarians who are now statistically insignificant. You know that science thingy you bash on about. Somewhere outside two standard devastation from the mean. Cutting and pasting reams of tripe makes not a scientist or academic of any substance. I can find counter arguments for any idea by any number of tin foil conspiracy theorists but that does not make for facts, does it?

    You are now statistically insignificant and of absolutely no consequence. Keep on prattling along however you are scientifically and therefor logically irrelevant.

    Useless ideas taking up much too much space is a bore.

    Some of us here are scientifically literate you know.

    Rattling on day after day cannot succeed against proof.

55. BacchusApril 24, 2014 at 10:39 pm

    I generally only lightly peruse these CC topics, but one thing sticks out like a sore thumb. Denialists of various hues invariably resort to the “there is no proof” blah blah blah… Perhaps these morons should refer back to the scientific method? 🙄

56. Stephen TardrewApril 24, 2014 at 10:40 pm

    Stop trying to wreck my home plant and take a trip to mars.

57. Stephen TardrewApril 24, 2014 at 10:42 pm

    Sorry brethren they are making me a wee bit testy.

58. KeithApril 24, 2014 at 10:46 pm

    Thanks for another well written article Kaye Lee, I find your articles are always interesting ; well researched and thought provoking.
    With climate science how can we debate ideas. Objectively what is happening in every country shows climate change is happening.
    I wonder how can you can communicate something such as temperature when the objective data says that temperatures have continued to rise since 1998, when deniers refuse to accept objective facts.
    Temperatures are not only going up in the Arctic region but are going from one extreme to another, within a week there has been talk of temperature variations of up to 40 degrees celsius, ranging from -20 Degrees C to +20 degrees C .
    A paper published earlier this year by Lance Lesack about the McKenzie River stated average temperatures have been climbing, and for Spring were slightly over 3 degrees C for Spring and over 5 degrees C for winter. Lesack and his fellow researchers were able to see the trend upwards in temperature through being able to access records going back to 1958.

59. Kaye LeeApril 24, 2014 at 10:49 pm

    Bacchus,

    As I read someone else say…proof is for maths and liquor.

60. Philip ShehanApril 25, 2014 at 12:20 am

    Permit me to repost a coment from Jo Nova’s blog which discusses spencer and Newman

    Too funny. Roy Spencer invented satellite temperature analysis, gets called “a blogger”

    While we are praising Spencer for his satellite based temperature measurements, let us see just how his data tallies with Maurice Newman’s statement that “Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years”

    http://tinyurl.com/khykv63

    From the beginning of satellite measurements in 1979:
    Trend: 0.14 ±0.07 °C/decade (2σ)

    For the last 17 years:
    Trend: 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade (2σ)

    For the last 18 years:
    Trend 0.12 ±0.19 °C/decade (2σ)

    For the last 15 years
    Trend: 0.15 ±0.21 °C/decade (2σ)

    So temperatures have certainly gone somewhere, even for the last 17 years, the lower rate being entirely expected if you cherry pick a start at the extreme el nino year.

    But wait there’s more. Once again skeptics stress statistical significance when it suits their argument:

    “not only are ocean trends not statistically significant…”

    Well folks, as far as the UAH temperature trends are concerned, the numbers for 18, 17 and 15 years are in statistical agreement with the trend since 1979.

    There is no statistically significant evidence for a pause or hiatus or even a reduction in the rate of temperature rise for those periods compared with the trend since 1979.

    ——————————————————————————–

61. uknowispeaksenseApril 25, 2014 at 12:45 am

    From the rules on my blog. Feel free to borrow and implement it here.

    “I am no longer accepting any comments on this blog from people taking a denial position. The science is settled in relation to climate change and the alleged “debate” only exists in the denial blogosphere. Just as I will not provide a forum for pseudoscientific bullshit like anti-vaccination, anti-fluoridation and free energy lunatics, I will not provide a forum for AGW deniers to spread their garbage. If you don’t like it, I don’t care. Go some other place or start your own blog.”

    Since taking this stance my readership has doubled. It would seem people are turned off by deniers. Just a thought. Oh and if any of the deniers commenting here have an issue with this, feel free to come to my blog and discuss it. I won’t here.

62. ShaunJApril 25, 2014 at 12:55 am

    G’day All,

    Ok, GregO and AndHurl, even though I don’t agree, we’ll give you one sell out Climate Scientist Judith WhatsHerFace, next, we have thousands to go, we’ll remove one of yours with one of ours and see who’s still standing in a couple of seconds or two. You two imbeciles are hard to take, crap science, crap references and you still think you’re making some point other than the fact you’re both idiots.

63. Andy HurleyApril 25, 2014 at 1:25 am

    Stephen Tardrew
    April 24, 2014 • 10:42 pm

    Sorry brethren they are making me a wee bit testy.

    Ah , how cute a fundamentalist retort , with the emphasis on mentalist.

    Shaun J
    How lovely to see a well thought out , intelligent response . Even though I do not know exactly what you are responding to, but i suspect neither do you?

    uknowispeaksense
    April 25, 2014 • 12:45 am

    From the rules on my blog. Feel free to borrow and implement it here.

    “I am no longer accepting any comments on this blog from people taking a denial position.

    Well that’s the science settled then .
    Funnily enough quite a few folk are pursuing the agenda of “fingers in the ears and don’t listen” almost as if they were in denial!

    Keith ,,,, I am so sorry , you are simply talking complete and utter bollix.not only that, you are in flagrant disbelief of what the IPCC are saying , that makes you a heretic.

    Stephen Tardrew
    April 24, 2014 • 10:40 pm

    Stop trying to wreck my home plant and take a trip to mars.

    Did you mean Planet?
    It is so difficult these days to find a decent protagonist to ensure the catastrophic human caused planet burning scenario can continue ,they are falling like leafs from trees .
    But respect innit?
    If you actually meant plant , then save some for me bro.

    Kaye , you will hear from me no more , the level of debate on this site is Kindergarten.

    Quite funny actually !

64. Andy HurleyApril 25, 2014 at 1:38 am

    G’day All,

    Ok, GregO and AndHurl, even though I don’t agree, we’ll give you one sell out Climate Scientist Judith WhatsHerFace, next, we have thousands to go, we’ll remove one of yours with one of ours and see who’s still standing in a couple of seconds or two. You two imbeciles are hard to take, crap science, crap references and you still think you’re making some point other than the fact you’re both idiots.

    Please realise this is not a game of , whatever the f$%^ you guys in Australia play , although I believe it involves a lot of hugging bottoms and Lycra, this is about Science .
    “judith whatsherface” is actually
    Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.[1]

    Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

    Not only that she has been appointed by the APS , that’s quite a big bunch of proper scientists , to review their last statement on climate change along with several other scientists. The IPCC must be wetting themselves waiting for this one,! but never mind Shaun ,I,m sure there is a sheep out there with your name on it. xx

65. ShaunJApril 25, 2014 at 1:42 am

    G’day All,

    Crap you do, AndHurl, you know exactly what I am responding to, I have clearly said, that Judith WhatsHerFace is a sellout “climate” scientist, fine (with reservations), that is one, we will take one off our list, although not comparable in expertise we’ll remove James Hansen, who’s next, where is your next climate scientist arguing against the AGW, can’t you understand this you moron? When you supply a name we will remove a name off of our list of scientists arguing for AGW, it is that simple, you’ve got one (arguably not even one but we’ll let that go), next name now, once you supply another creditable name we’ll remove one and lets see where that pissing match gets us. You are a moron of the nth degree with little or no morals, but fine, lets continue the match moron.

66. ShaunJApril 25, 2014 at 1:49 am

    G’day All,

    Nice one idiot, the bottom hugging lycra wearing f-wit you are referring to is another of you idiotic denialists, he just happens to be the current, country destroying Prime Minister, to our shame he has an intellect as poor as your own, minuscule and almost non existent, funny how you denialists are all bone stupid.

67. Andy HurleyApril 25, 2014 at 1:57 am

    You cannot remove James Hansen!!! Are you mad?? without him you have no science whatsoever, he is the head honcho , the big cheese , capo di tutti capi! .
    He made the hockey stick!!
    ok, got it , see your point.

68. ShaunJApril 25, 2014 at 2:00 am

    G’day All,

    So, I can see from your inability to provide another name fwit AndHurl you are finding it difficult to find another “credible” AGW denying “scientist” (questionable) like Judith WhatsHerFace. Gee this was easy, you have lost already moron, stuck at one.

69. ShaunJApril 25, 2014 at 2:04 am

    G’day All,

    So come on dickwad AndHurl, where’s your second, so called, (credible) climate scientist that denies AGW, come on dick, name another.

70. ShaunJApril 25, 2014 at 2:09 am

    G’day All,

    OMG, poor old AndHurl (the Fwit) has gone on home, can’t name more than one credible (questionable) climate scientist other than Judith WhatsHerFace that denies AGW, what a complete and utter fwit. He is without doubt the most miserable denier that we have seen since Monckton the moron, christ they are miserably stupid, why do they bother.

71. ShaunJApril 25, 2014 at 2:16 am

    G’day All,

    Sure I have removed James Hansen, he is far and above Judith WhatsHerFace in scientific credibility, but hey that doesn’t matter, we’ve got thousands of credibly climate scientists that support AGW, you’ve got what three, maybe four, CREDIBLE scientists that deny AGW. I’m more than happy to continue this pissing match, you aneural piece of crap.

72. ShaunJApril 25, 2014 at 2:17 am

    G’day All,

    Where you gone, AndHurl, you my bitch now.

73. ShaunJApril 25, 2014 at 2:30 am

    G’day All,

    Christ all mighty its taking you sometime to google another name AndHurl, I guess it’s the “credible” part that is perplexing you, hell don’t let that bother you, just pull up another empty headed, god bothering, empty headed idiot and we will still match it with one of our clear headed scientists, hey that is being more than fair isn’t it? Still afraid to start this pissing match I’ll bet.

74. lotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 3:21 am

    “I would note that regardless of Roy Spencer’s apparently misguided religious views, he invented satellite temperature analysis, so perhaps deserves a little cred for that?”

    Yes, cred for that as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go all that far on this topic.

    Firstly, Spencer and Christy stuffed up their satellite temperature analysis and left it stuffed up for several years after other satellite groups suggested that there appeared to be a problem with their work. (It was no doubt entirely a coincidence that their error made their measurement of the rate of warming in the affected parts of the atmosphere lower than it really was.) They only corrected it when another group figured out what the exact problem was and they could no longer claim that no problem had been found. That’s really not a good look if you cite his own area of expertise as a reason for taking his opinion in other areas of climate science seriously.

    Furthermore, his satellite analysis work doesn’t imply that he knows much about other large areas of climate science, and unfortunately a lot of his contrarian opinions that find their way into the popular media are about those other areas, and those opinions do not seem to be grounded in the full set of evidence.

    From what I’ve seen Curry is not on much stronger ground than Spencer. Regardless of her credentials I stopped reading her website very early on not long after she made some very poor attempts at probability analysis. That wasn’t the reason for stopping – it was primarily due to her rejection of the issues with her analysis that people helpfully pointed out. Despite the positioning of her new website, she clearly preferred to hold her pre-determined line rather than change her mind when issues with her position were pointed out. I find life’s too short to keep wading through that kind of output hoping for a nugget of thought that survives scrutiny.

75. lotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 3:22 am

    But Greg, let’s put those problems from my previous comment aside because they aren’t the main issue. Instead let us imagine that you were to present contrarian positions from two scientists with impeccable credentials and ask people to adopt them on that basis.

    There’s a far more important problem with that argument. It’s an attempt to argue science from authority – and massively cherry-picked authority at that. That’s not necessarily a deal breaker if you’re talking to people who aren’t well credentialed experts in the field themselves. If you’re not such an expert then you almost certainly don’t have the skills to figure out if and when the various experts have it closer to right or closer to wrong. In that case looking to the positions of the experts is pretty much your best move – that is, if you actually *want* to find the position that has the best chance of corresponding to reality. (If you don’t, your best strategy is quite different.)

    So if you want to argue that expert credentials are a valid factor for non-experts to consider in order to take an expert’s position seriously, be my guest. But you must be *consistent* about applying that principle! In other words you have to apply it to ALL the well credentialed experts, even when they don’t all say the same thing!

    So what does a non-expert do when there isn’t 100% agreement amongst the experts – as is quite often the case?

    Well, in some cases it’s difficult, but in others it’s straightforward. You’re violating your own criteria if you choose a position held by a small minority of experts when there’s a strong evidence-based consensus amongst the expert community against that position. You’re simply cherry-picking experts which is no better than cherry-picking from the evidence – so go with the consensus. You’ll have a far better chance of being in line with reality.

76. lotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 3:34 am

    “Denialists of various hues invariably resort to the “there is no proof”…”

    …because they are mostly following the playbook written by the tobacco industry. Go read up on how that industry misled the public for several decades, and the particular strategies and tactics they used. Many of them are obviously being deployed right now, including that one.

    An example: “Show me the peer reviewed paper which categorically states that Anthropogenic CO2 is or will be the cause of catastrophic global warming.”

    That one is a great example of the “high proof fallacy” which relies on (deliberately or otherwise) severely misunderstanding the nature of scientific knowledge. There is no “categoric proof” in science, just higher and lower levels of confidence.

    Those pushing this fallacy argue that one should only act on this particular risk when we are essentially certain of it eventuating. This calculation is rightly seen as sheer folly when applied to risks in other areas. It’s the equivalent of waiting until you’re certain a bushfire is going to burn your house down before ringing up the insurance company – or a driver waiting until the very last millisecond before a collision become inevitable before applying the brakes because until that point it’s uncertain whether a collision is on the cards or not…

77. lotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 3:43 am

    Science proceeds through the peer-reviewed literature.

    Those touting ClimateGate are unable to point out a single paper that was retracted as a result of the “revelations” in the purloined e-mails. I suspect they can’t even point out a case where a robust rebuttal to any of the papers by the authors of those e-mails was enabled by the “revelations”.

    That is very interesting. Why, it’s almost like they’re following the tobacco industry playbook, trying to cast doubt on scientific evidence through non-scientific means. Some might consider that a “dog that didn’t bark” (or a poker “tell”) indicating that they *can’t* find a legitimate scientific attack of any significance.

    And that’s a great shame. I’d love to see someone show that fossil fuels and emissions of other greenhouse gases simply aren’t putting us in any danger of destabilising the fairly stable climate in which a lot of our modern agricultural crops developed, along with the ecosystem that enables them to thrive and feed us. But there’s so much evidence pointing the other way now that it’s very very unlikely to happen 🙁

78. lotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 3:51 am

    “[Hansen] made the hockey stick!!”

    Er, mate, a quiet word if you would. Everyone else please look away!

    [Whispers] Mate, can I suggest that before you post anything else, you take a quick look at the paper in question and find out what the “H” in “MBH” stands for? You’ll thank me. And can I suggest a little bit more fact-checking before you post anything else might be cool?

    Right, youse can all look again now.

79. lotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 3:56 am

    Speaking of dogs that didn’t bark and poker tells:

    “…you’ve got what three, maybe four, CREDIBLE scientists that deny AGW…”

    The collection of scientists with reasonable climate science credentials that get trotted out to express heavily contrarian positions is rather small. You tend to see the same small handful (not to mention a second bunch that are passed off as climate scientists but haven’t published any papers to the claims they are making).

    Lindzen used to be highly respected because he did a bunch of good science a few decades, but from what I have seen he hasn’t done anything significant that held up for a long time now and he routinely makes claims to the non-expert public that he wouldn’t dare try to publish in a peer-reviewed journal or present at an expert conference. I believe he’s lost a lot of respect for those reasons – and he’s the standout from the set of most visible contrarian scientists.

80. Möbius EckoApril 25, 2014 at 7:23 am

    Thankyou lotharsson for your usual forthright and lucid responses. I have at times followed you and others on climate change science discussions and they are always enlightening.

    Kaye Lee I have long debated, though that’s the wrong word, this topic with deniers, and on rare occasion someone who raises lucid points of contention. Like you I used to have a plethora of facts at hand using topic aggregators, hyperlink storage apps and third party apps like Evernote, Google etc. to keep facts at hands and track the latest information on the topic.

    In sheer frustration I gave up as I found I was constantly debating around in circles. Facts and data would be ignored as the contrarians inevitably skirted around them. Migs can tell you of one we frequently debated on another blog who had no problem of going from a position of there being absolutely no global warming, to global warming being natural but insignificant, to it being natural and significant but nothing we could do anything about, to there being some AGW but it was insignificant and we had to adapt then back to there being no global warming at ll.

    I know like any other topic you can only debate or discuss against the contrarians using the facts and data available but damn it’s frustrating to have those totally ignored and utter bunkum constantly thrown back at you.

    Thank you again and love what your are doing and respect your patience and lucidity in a deliberately muddied world.

81. Lord JimApril 25, 2014 at 7:26 am

    Lotharsson, CAGW does not even have the status of a theory – it is a hypothesis. Walton (Appeal to Expert Opinion) observes: “Many things we accept are, inevitably, accepted on the basis of authority… of course, we presume that these pronouncements are based on scientifically verified facts…” A hypothesis as the basis of an argument from authority is simply an act of faith.

82. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 7:34 am

    ME,

    I once had a kid in my class who was severely dyslexic. When he first came he told me he didn’t do the work the other kids did, he just would colour in a map etc. I wouldn’t accept that even though, on the markbook I inherited from his previous teacher it said “unable to assess”. I said to him “It might be harder for you but that just means you have to try harder. I will help you”. We struggled along for a few weeks with him saying “Miss, just give up will ya”. I told him “I never give up, just start helping me.” That kid ended up sitting for exams just like everyone else and doing reasonably well. Experiences like that make it hard for me to let things go. It is a failing of mine that my father pointed out to me when I was an arrogant 16 year old – “It’s not your job to always point out when people are wrong.” I still struggle with what I know is good advice. It’s the teacher in me.

83. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 7:39 am

    Lord Jim,

    You seem to be ignoring the tens of thousands of scientific studies from hundreds of different fields of study whose results all agree with the hypothesis. And I think we can safely say that we know the properties of greenhouse gases. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. I think we can use the word theory.

84. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 7:56 am

    To those of you who are still deniers, pop over to this story and have a look at the comments from John Davidson Jr, who is valiantly arguing the case that tobacco is not harmful. He is using the exact same tactics that you are, straight from the Hill & Knowlton playbook.

    You are either knowingly complicit in spreading misinformation presumably for personal gain, or you have been fooled by the PR people who are paid a lot to keep you dumb while their clients wring the last bit of profit out of fossil fuels that they can because the window for doing that is rapidly closing.

    Here’s a tip from me. Get rid of your fossil fuel shares and invest in renewable energy. You’ll thank me for it in the future, and so will your grandkids.

85. Douglas EvansApril 25, 2014 at 8:25 am

    In Australia and north America (Canada too) the climate deniers have won the battle both for public opinion and to control any political inclination to act against this threat. Facts and rational argument have been swept aside by irrational emotional appeal exploiting our innate fear of change, fear of the unknown.

    The apologists for the liars and deceivers that have swarmed all over the comments to this piece are typical. It’s impossible to debate with them because facts that don’t correspond with their convictions are (to them) just more evidence of the existence of a giant global conspiracy of scientists to delude an unsuspecting public. The greater the pile of evidence opposing their chosen point of view the greater must be (in their ‘minds’) the conspiracy to deceive.

    Robert Manne is Emeritus Professor and Vice Chancellor’s fellow at Latrobe University. He has twice been voted Australia’s leading public intellectual. In 2012 in a lengthy and depressing article for ‘The Monthly’ titled ‘A Dark Victory how vested interests defeated climate science’ he described just how this has happened and it has a lot to do with idiots like Hurley peddling their conspiracist nonsense in blog comments columns. http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/august/1344299325/robert-manne/dark-victory

    They and their ilk have successfully persuaded the public that there is valid doubt where none exists and our children and grandchildren will bear the awful consequences. I predict that, when first their lifestyles (within a decade) then their lives (within thirty years) come under threat, clowns like those who parade their fearful ignorance and prejudice here, will be among those shouting loudest about a conspiracy to conceal the evidence and awful consequences of global warming. They will not be responsible – they were only wanting to ‘debate ideas’.

    Fools, liars and hypocrites – they deserve (and will eventually receive) universal contempt and condemnation.

86. Lord JimApril 25, 2014 at 8:53 am

    Kaye Lee: CAGW has certainly not been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

    For instance, the FACT is that the empirical record disagrees with the ‘projections’ (note how the term ‘projection’ rather than ‘prediction’ is used, another sign of unsettled science.) of the climate models.

    The last 20 years have seen an almost exponential increase in CO2; no corresponding warming. Of course, as Quine observed, one can always use supplementary hypotheses to ‘save’ a failed hypothesis from empirical falsification – so we get the lack of warming being explained away because of ‘aerosols’, ‘heat hiding in the deep’ and ecetera. Even if one were to accept those supplementary hypothesis as a good reason to ‘save’ the CAGW hypothesis, it /still/ does not make CAGW a theory.

87. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 8:54 am

    Well said Doug. Those that knowingly misinform, those that purposely obstruct, those that willingly lie for profit – they are committing crimes against humanity. Those that have been sucked in should be ashamed of their ignorance in swallowing propaganda from dubious sources and of their complicitous action as foot-soldiers for the criminals.

88. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 8:56 am

    ” the FACT is that the empirical record disagrees with the ‘projections’ ”

    Could you point me to scientific studies showing this please

89. Möbius EckoApril 25, 2014 at 8:57 am

    Douglas Evans on another fora I compared these deniers to the protagonist(s) in the 70’s and 80’s disaster movies like The Towering Inferno, Earthquake, Jaws and The Poseidon Adventure etc. They were movies with a political message against the American right and the influence of the rich and powerful to blindly lead people into disaster and then demand to be the first to be rescued to the cost of those they put into danger in the first instance.

    In these movies the protagonist(s), who right up until the disaster occurs, denies there is a problem and uses every means at their disposal to thwart those attempting to warn of or avert the looming disaster, then use every means at their disposal to firstly blame others for the disaster occurring and then insist they be head of the line to be rescued, even if this meant others had to die.

    In the movies the protagonist(s) usually came to a sticky and horrible end. In reality, sadly, this never happens.

    Your point is valid though for those who are currently squawking loudest across all media against the science of AGW will most likely be the ones squawking loudest of why wasn’t something done sooner when the current impacts of it become considerably worse. They will also be the ones at the front of the line demanding compensation and government assistance along with being the most vociferous at blaming the left for the disaster and their desperate situation.

90. Lord JimApril 25, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Kaye Lee: ” the FACT is that the empirical record disagrees with the ‘projections’ ” Could you point me to scientific studies showing this please.
    ———————-
    Really, Kaye Lee, spare me your credulity. It is a well known fact that the temperature rise seen over the last 20 years has not kept pace with the predictions of CAGW caused by an almost exponential increase in CO2.

    This is admitted by CAGW proponents, e.g. Hansen:

    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade…”

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

    Not that you actually need a scientific study to tell you that a predicted temperature increase has not occurred: the divergence between a predicted temperature and actual temperature is a matter of common knowledge that needs no explication by an expert. What you are practicing is a crude form of credentialism.

    I reiterate: CAGW is nothing more than a hypothesis that is currently being ‘saved’ from extinction by the generation of supplementary hypotheses (‘aerosols’, ‘heat hiding in the sea’, ‘black coal’) – there is not even a consensus amongst experts as to what supplementary hypotheses to invoke: and yet you would tell us that ‘the science is settled’.

91. Michael TaylorApril 25, 2014 at 9:36 am

    So, Lord Jim, you are still admitting that there have been temperature rises over the last 20 years.

    Shouldn’t that be the issue?

92. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 9:38 am

    Lord Jim, saying something is a “well-known fact” does not make it one.

    Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade.

    Surface temperature is only a small fraction of our climate with most of global warming going into the oceans. When all the heat accumulating in the oceans, warming the land and atmosphere and melting ice is tallied up, we see that global warming is still happening.

    It’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino, ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points or short time periods or outliers as base comparisons.

    Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

93. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 9:44 am

    How typical Lord Jim, that you link to a paper and quote one sentence from it about a 5 year period. What a prime example of cherry picking. let’s have a look at what the article ACTUALLY says.

    “Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies.

    Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.

    The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century.”

94. Möbius EckoApril 25, 2014 at 9:47 am

    You’re kidding us Lord Jim surely? You have taken one sentence out of an entire paper that goes on to give an explanation for that one sentence and it’s meaning but still contends that AGW is a factor for continued warming.

    The conclusion is:

    Indeed, the current stand still of the 5 year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions,
    while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (Nino index in Fig. 1). Comparing the global temperature at the time of the most recent three La Ninas (1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is apparent that global temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable tropical temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of the previous three decades. We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.

95. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 9:58 am

    It is just unfathomable to me how these people can look at observations that show the hottest ten years on record have happened since 1998 while saying this disproves global warming. it’s like a patient having a temp of 103 and saying because their temp hasn’t gone up in the last 10 minutes there is obviously nothing wrong with them.

96. KeithApril 25, 2014 at 10:16 am

    AndyH, I’m not a scientist, the comments that I make are based on papers that have been released. Where possible I site the most recent papers available, many published this year. Many scientists who study the Polar regions believe that models created are behind what is actually happening. When references are provided by anthropogenic disbelievers in climate change I go to the references they provide. Something I have found is that often the comments they make do not accurately represent what a paper has stated. It astounds me that some are suggesting that fraud has occurred; climategate is behind us, nobody has been prosecuted. We know that in pretty well every profession there are people who are corrupt or break ethical boundaries. Science papers written are constantly sifted over so it will soon be found out if some kind of fraud is occurring. Peer review of scientific papers ensures that any conclusions drawn in a paper are challenged and papers rewritten to provide accurate interpretations.
    Scientists recognize that there can be natural decadal changes and so look for the longest possible trends; and so, when disbelievers use 1998 in relation to showing that temperatures have stopped increasing it is a meaningless statement. The long term trend shows that there have been has been warming, record temperatures have been recorded since anyway.

    Here is an interesting quote attributed to the IPCC…” The last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) warned of the implications if the glaciers of West Antarctica were to become unstable. “Here,” says Durand, “we have proof that that is already happening with this one.”
    http://www.dw.de/antarctic-glaciers-retreat-unstoppable/a-17363380

    Comments about whats happening in the Arctic region
    http://www.envisionation.co.uk/index.php/videos/arctic-dynamics

    When suggesting that there are temperatures variations of 40 degrees C those have been recorded since the IPCC paper had been released. Very new data, though it is uniformly recognized that temperatures are going up overall.

    Forgive the pun but your comment doesn’t cut the ice…” you are simply talking complete and utter bollix.not only that, you are in flagrant disbelief of what the IPCC are saying , that makes you a heretic.”

    AndyH, you might like to set these two Agencies straight… Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences

    http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

97. Möbius EckoApril 25, 2014 at 10:17 am

    Yes Kaye Lee. I can source it if required, there’s data that shows the last three decadal trends with each one warmer than the previous. Though there are short flat inter-decadal temperature periods, but never declines, the global temperature is still rising.

98. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 10:21 am

    The Escalator graph shows it well I think ME

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

99. diannaartApril 25, 2014 at 10:25 am

    We are aware that a whopping 3% of climatologists disagree with the other ‘not so significant’ 97% of climatologists.

    Science deniers must wet themselves when they find one of the 3% willing to support their ideologies.

    One such is Judith Curry, like others before her if one does some research a link to Heartland eventually turns up.

    No further discussion will be entered into by yours truly, I am one of those convinced by evidence that climate has been and continues to be impacted by human pollutants.

100. Stephen TardrewApril 25, 2014 at 10:29 am

     Thank you all for some sanity. Great posts. The nail is in the coffin and the denialists floundering in a morass of irrelevancy.

     Anthropogenic Global Warming is scientifically proven.

     It has been verified and falsified at a statistical level thus disproving the null hypothesis.

     In short it is statistically significant therefore proven.

     Why the hell would you destroy billions of peoples lives (Bangladesh alone would be a disaster of epic proportions)?

     What if their is an undetected tipping point and warming is accelerated e.g. permafrost methane emissions.

     Why would you play Russian roulette with the biospheres?

     You are a bunch of unethical fear mongers with little regard for the future of our children.

     If the science were wrong by some unforeseen miracle it would not matter.

     If you are wrong, which you are, you are condemning vast number of citizens to lives of distress, poverty, hardship and death while eventually making the planet uninhabitable.

     This is beyond a joke. Try a course in propositional logic.

     Your futile ignorant arguments are for ignorant fools who have no grasp of ethics or social responsibility.

     In short you are a bunch of egocentric pathological narcissists.

     You should be ashamed of yourselves.

101. Stephen TardrewApril 25, 2014 at 10:31 am

     Michael Post gobbled up by the nasty spam man. Understand no probs.

102. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 10:35 am

     Same thing is happening to me on John Lord’s story Stephen

103. diannaartApril 25, 2014 at 10:38 am

     Kaye Lee

     Apologies for double entry – please the delete whichever post you prefer.

     🙁

104. Michael TaylorApril 25, 2014 at 10:42 am

     That’s my fault, diannaart. I saw that a number of comments had been caught up in spam so I released them all.

     Stephen I couldn’t see yours there. Just diannaart’s and Kaye’s.

105. Stephen TardrewApril 25, 2014 at 10:55 am

     Michael

     In light of my devastating intellect I missed “further comments”. One is humbled.

106. diannaartApril 25, 2014 at 11:00 am

     Thank you Michael

     🙂

107. Möbius EckoApril 25, 2014 at 11:01 am

     Kaye Lee I have often used that animated graph as well.

     Another thing that irks me with the deniers is their claim, with no or discredited evidence, that the models haven’t followed the observations or reality. Nothing could be further from the truth, and indeed if the models have veered from the observations it has been that the model has been conservative and the warming has trended worse.

     One example is the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) Simulation of Early 20th Century Global Warming that shows recent climate modelling fairly accurately matched observations. Earlier 20th century global warming has been more circumspect.

     But if you look you can find many cases where the modelling has been accurate within the probabilities given and have been incrementally improving with the increases in technology and computing power. And as they have been getting better, along with the significant increase in observed data, they show the trend for global temperature is increasing and humans being a contributor.

108. KeithApril 25, 2014 at 11:14 am

     Möbius Ecko, I agree it can be frustrating to try and communicate with disbelievers. I look on them as strawmen, they are not going to change their view, but somebody who is unsure about what’s happening can match you comments against those of the disbeliever. The disbeliever has few up to date references, so where possible I try to provide a reference for the present.
     I find that when they can’t match it, they start to become abusive and start to score home goals.
     For that reason I try to remain respectful towards them; most of the media is very ordinary in Australia anyway and so they obtain repeated poor information which they regurgitate back.

109. Möbius EckoApril 25, 2014 at 11:34 am

     Thanks Keith, that’s a good way of looking at it and a reason not to stop posting counter arguments with the current facts and data available. At a scientific level the discussions are more complex but it’s worth following them as they link to good data and the latest research and findings.

110. LotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 2:53 pm

     “CAGW does not even have the status of a theory – it is a hypothesis.”

     Firstly, to make sure everyone’s clear, “theory” and “hypothesis” here refer to “scientific theory” and “scientific hypothesis”, which are different from the everyday meaning of the words. A scientific theory has the support of so much evidence and for so long despite concerted attempts to break it that no scientist seriously expects that new evidence will cause it to be significantly modified, let alone rebutted. A scientific hypothesis has good evidence supporting it already, although not as strong as a theory.

     Secondly, requiring “the status of a [scientific] theory” is not necessary for decision making – and requiring it before making decisions is really stupid. (“High proof” fallacy all over again – foolish when driving, foolish when considering taking up smoking, foolish when considering bushfire insurance, foolish when messing with the atmosphere…)

     Thirdly, over the last few years “CAGW” is a term almost exclusively employed by denialists as a strawman rather than a scientific term. It’s usually another “tell” that those using it aren’t operating from a good understanding of the scientific literature. (I have yet to see someone who uses it point to a scientific definition, for fairly obvious reasons. Ironically recent climate science research is raising more strongly the possibility of very bad outcomes that some might term Catastrophic…)

     Often the aim of invoking the “CAGW” as either strawman or an inappropriate high proof bar seems to be to try to AVOID factoring in (let alone discussing or challenging) what we know from science about the possibility of undesirable outcomes, their likelihoods of eventuating and the level or uncertainty involved in that analysis. They usually hope they can knock down the strawman and then pretend that means there are no risks of very bad outcomes. It’s easy to see this is fallacious.

     Fourthly, much (but not all) of the time those saying “CAGW isn’t proven” or words to that effect are implicitly or explicitly asserting that they are *completely* confident of the outcomes of changing the atmosphere, and those outcomes are all just fine. In other words they assert that scientific understanding isn’t sufficiently certain to act against human induced climate change – but is completely certain to not act against it. You can’t have it both ways, and in most cases their argument falls to pieces without having it both ways.

     If someone wants to argue that evidence indicates that we should do nothing to mitigate the risks of human induced climate change, be my guest! But you’ll need to argue *from* the evidence rather than dismiss it or cherrypick it, and you’ll need to take into account current scientific understanding of future outcomes complete with uncertainties about severity, impact, timing and likelihood of occurence rather than requiring high proof.

     The trouble is that uncertainty about risks is no-one’s friend. If we are LESS certain about the severity of a potential outcome, then it could turn out much worse than cases where are are MORE certain. And if there are risks that are completely unacceptable, best practices in risk management (at a corporate, personal, state or global level) dictates that we move heaven and earth to prevent them from occurring.

111. LotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 2:56 pm

     “A hypothesis as the basis of an argument from authority is simply an act of faith”.

     This does not describe my position so that characterisation does not apply.

     Firstly note that *I* was not making an argument from authority in the sense that that term usually means – picking a person (or group), suggesting they are an authoritat-IVE source of information on a topic (often by citing their “credentials”), and asking people to believe their claims BECAUSE they (allegedly) only make authoritative pronouncements. The fact that authoritativeness does not follow from appropriate credentials is obvious because any number of counter-examples exist. Hence that form of argument is clearly invalid.

     What I did point out was that – even if we simply treat that form of argument as valid for the purposes of discussion – if we deploy it correctly we MUST conclude that when a strong expert consensus exists on a given question, then it IS the only “authority” with regard to that question. If the logic says that an individual with appropriate credentials is an authoritative source, then a heavy majority of all such credentialed individuals must be even more so!

     To reiterate, pointing out the inevitability of that logic does not mean I am arguing by appeal to authority myself.

     Secondly, my appeal to strong expert consensus (even if you wish to incorrectly dub it “an argument from authority”) does not have a hypothesis as THE BASIS of the argument.

     The core basis of the appeal to strong expert consensus is the EVIDENCE underlying the conclusions. That evidence has generated a heavy expert consensus, despite many well motivated experts having a great deal of opportunity to show the consensus position is significantly misguided. An argument based on the weight of evidence is the very opposite of “an act of faith”.

112. mars08April 25, 2014 at 3:05 pm

     Interesting isn’t it????

     The way deniers effortlessly chop back and forward between [a] there’s no solid evidence of climate change, to; [b] climate change is not due to human activity, to; [c] it’s not financially viable to try and halt it.

     Hmmm. Oh… FFS… just pick one damn position, dig a foxhole, and have the courage to defend it!!!!

113. Kaye LeeApril 25, 2014 at 3:13 pm

     They can’t do that mars08 because they didn’t choose the war. They are repeating what they have been told by their ‘generals’ who have a strategy to employ just like telemarketers. They just jump to the next quote from Jo Nova or Lord Monckton or some other nutcase without having any idea what they are talking about, How can you dig a foxhole in quicksand?

114. LotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 3:17 pm

     As the Escalator graph illustrates, contrarians frequently exploit favourable noise in the signal (especially average surface temperature reconstructions) to claim that the underlying warming trend has stopped, or hasn’t risen as fast as expected, only to be proven wrong when the noise turns unfavourable again (as it must in the end). That kind of “signal analysis” would get you a failing grade in an undergraduate engineering class. And as can be explained on various blogs (try Tamino’s “Open Mind”) there’s no evidence from a proper signal analysis that the underlying trend has stopped, or even significantly slowed down.

     But maybe thinking like that is too complicated! Here’s another easier to understand way of looking at it. One of the biggest sources of “noise”, i.e. a factor that affects surface temperatures but doesn’t cause a long term warming or cooling trend itself, is the ENSO cycle which every few years brings either La Nina and El Nino conditions shifting the global temperature up or down quite a bit while those conditions persist.

     So what do we see when we look at the surface temperature trends for only La Nina years? And for only El Nino years? And for only the neutral years?

     http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67

     Has the surface warming stopped or continued?

     (And all of that disregards the fact that the surface temperature doesn’t reflect all of the extra energy that the climate system is accumulating. Relying on that kind of omission to argue that the climate system is no longer accumulating excess heat energy would get you another failing grade…)

115. LotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 3:19 pm

     “How can you dig a foxhole in quicksand?”

     FTW, as I believe the young ones twitter these days.

116. Andy HurleyApril 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm

     Here you go Shaun , sorry our pleasant discourse was discontinued ,but some of us actually have to work and sleep !
     I must say that I cannot accept your kind offer to be your bitch a I am not inclined that way , but anyway ,would that not upset your favourite sheep?

     http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2009/05/list-of-prominent-scientists-skeptical.html

     for your information , the number of people who are pro or con is irrelevant to an argument ,what is important is who is right.
     Behaving like sheep in a group think of “woe is me the sky is falling down” ,is hardly fitting for an intelligent person.
     I could recount the number of previous consensus which have been disproved ,and are now laughable to imagine they ever held sway , but I,m sure you know them already.
     So seriously , you need to take your strawman out for a walk or something, the rancid odour of your putrescent ,adolescent fumbling appear to be all over it.

117. LotharssonApril 25, 2014 at 9:38 pm

     “…the number of people who are pro or con is irrelevant to an argument ,what is important is who is right.”

     Firstly to be be accurate, we’re not talking about “who is right” here since we’re talking about science (and so many errors of logic flow from making that mistake). We’re talking about which position is most strongly supported when ALL the evidence is taken into account.

     So this quote is true, but not very helpful for most people – on most questions, not just climate science. The same considerations apply to medicine, law, engineering, aviation – any complex field where one does not have the expertise oneself.

     In the case of climate science, if you’re a publishing climate scientist who is aware of sufficient breadth of the evidence that matters to the question at hand, then you can and should go figure out what the evidence indicates. But without those skills and that knowledge of the evidence, you *can’t* figure it out. You might tell yourself that you can, but you’d be kidding yourself. The celebrated research of Dunning & Kruger is relevant here – and it demonstrates that you can even be highly skilled and knowledgeable in a related field – like some of the people on your list are, Andy – but you can still fool because you’re not an expert in the field that matters – like some of the people on that list have done, IIRC.

     In addition, this line of argument when deployed by a contrarian is almost always a red herring. Almost always the person saying doesn’t have the skills and knowledge and hasn’t tried to figure it out for themselves, but they haven’t done the next best thing either and indeed they’re arguing against doing that!

     The next best thing is to try and figure out which position is most strongly indicated by the evidence, and that can only be done by consulting the relevant set of experts. When there’s a consensus of those experts behind one position characterised by two thing – a large majority of the experts agree, and there’s good evidence for it after concerted investigation – then that’s the one that’s most likely to be backed by the evidence.

     The tactic that responds to this by pointing out past consensus positions that have subsequently been shown to be flawed usually relies heavily on examples that lack one or other of those dimensions. But even if the examples are valid, they are typically embedded in an argument that (again!) relies on invalidly insisting on “high proof”. The goal here is to find the best evidence-based position given what we know so that we can make the most informed decisions. Pointing out that sometimes we have to make decisions in the absence of complete knowledge is (a) pointing out the bleedingly obvious(!) and (b) not a valid reason for arguing that we should “defer a decision”. “Deferring a decision” *IS* a decision – a decision to continue with “business as usual” – and since that is being made now, it is made with incomplete knowledge. Since we must decide without complete knowledge, the best strategy is to be as informed as is *currently* possible. The contrarians generally want decision makers to exclude some of what we know from the decision making process, which is incredibly foolish.

     So to that aim, instead of acknowledging the logic of strong evidence-backed expert consensus, they often continue by either cherrypicking someone whose contrarian opinion they like and calling them an authority (thereby falsely implying that their opinion is authoritative – see upthread for examples), or by invoking a massive conspiracy theory to “explain” why the vast majority of people with relevant expertise disagree with the position they tout. In my experience with contrarians if you point out the flaws in their argument persistently enough and for long enough and they don’t give up on the conversation, most of them will reach a point where they imply a huge hidden conspiracy.

118. uknowispeaksenseApril 25, 2014 at 10:19 pm

     Lotharsson

     Give him time. It shouldn’t be long now. In the end, conspiracy ideation is the inevitable position for these people as there can be no other when the science isn’t on their side and they have to rely on a ragtag bunch of non-experts, not quite experts and alleged experts for them to pin their own (ironically) “appeal to authority” on. The obvious reason, to deniers, why this ragtag bunch cannot get into the peer reviewed journals is because everyone is conspiring against them or the whole scientific community is suffering from “groupthink”. The latter argument is of course preposterous as it shows a complete ignorance of the way scientists actually think.

119. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 12:39 am

     To be fair, the contrarians *DO* get into the peer-reviewed literature from time to time. The problem is that they almost always get slapped down hard with strong rebuttals inside of a few months (which is fairly quick for science and indicates that the flaws are pretty obvious to some of the other experts). Some of the most visible contrarians have published some of the worst climate science papers ever.

     In light of that it’s got to be one hell of conspiracy theory that says either:

     1) the guys who manage to publish things that are (mostly) quickly shown to be way off base actually have a better understanding than the rest of the field (who somehow manage to publish things that mostly survive post-publication scrutiny).

     2) The editors (and the peer reviewers) of ALL the journals are only letting the bad papers from contrarians get published and rejecting the good ones to make them look bad.

     Number (1) is a doozy. The contrarians’ superior understanding apparently applies to the whole field…

     …except their own papers. Which, of course, clearly makes them authoritative when they make pronouncements that go against the consensus…oh, wait.

     Number (2) implies that the editors and peer reviewers have a better understanding of the field than the contrarians.

     Whoops!

120. ShaunJApril 26, 2014 at 12:44 am

     G’day All,

     Rubbish AndHurl, absolute rubbish, it is not “people” it is scientists that can replicate and observe the work of fellow scientists that is meaningful. It is not “opinion” it is observable facts. And I have offered you the chance to provide your “reputable” scientists that can provide clear evidence of their work in disproving AGW and you have failed once again, hiding behind BS words and shifting focus, I did not “offer” you for you to be “my bitch” you are already because you have failed to provide any form of scientific credibility to your argument, show the scientists that back your fallacious contentions.

121. ShaunJApril 26, 2014 at 1:00 am

     G’day All,

     And just so you don’t think I don’t care AndHurl here is a list or ORGANISATIONS” (i.e. many scientists that know AGW is real) that matches your individual, so called scientists,
     http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php.

     Now, stump up your next credible scientist so that we can exhaust your list of BS and demonstrate to all and sundry how empty your scientific assertions are.

122. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 8:41 am

     Firstly Kaye Lee, it IS a well know fact that the empirical temperature rise has not accorded with the model projections (As per Spenser, according to 95% of the models the empirical record is /wrong/). There is absolutely no reason for me to bend over backwards to prove something that is a matter of common knowledge (or should be common knowledge to the reasonably well informed).

     The argument is /not/ about whether the temperature is rising – the temperature of the world has probably been rising since the end of the little ice age (although there are measurement problems with both the terrestrial and satellite records that raise questions of reliability). It is about whether the ‘projections’ (really, one should day ‘predictions’ but CAGW proponents are shy of saying that word because it implies a standard of judgment) of CAGW match up to the observations record. They do not. Therefore pretty much everything you have said is irrelevant to my argument. You continue the meme of the warming ‘going into the oceans (one of the ‘saving’ supplementary hypotheses that I mentioned: a claim that is not sustained by the empirical data on ocean heat).

     As for what Hansen ‘actually says’ he ‘actually says’ what I quoted:

     “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade” – which is the fact you asked me to provide a source for.

     As for your comment: “Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.” That does NOT mean that it has ‘significantly’ warmed since 1998. A plateau can be at the same level or thereabouts – alternatively you can deny Hansen’s observation that the temperature record has been flat for a decade (obviously what you are trying to imply by this comment is that the world has continued to warm, which flies in the face of what Hansen actually said).

     As for: Cowtan & Way (2013) [plucked no doubt from ‘skeptical’ science] this is an attempted reconstruction of the temperature record – not an actual measurement of temperature. Using algorithms to create data where there is none is something that can never be empirically confirmed (the original data /does not exist/). Given the theoretical biases of /all/ scientists (theory dependence of observation) something that cannot be empirically confirmed should /always/ be treated as conjectural, not (as you do) as ‘proof’.

     Moreover, even Cowtan & Way admit that there results are only preliminary:

     “preliminary global temperature reconstructions presented here, by highlighting the potential scale of the bias in the short-term temperature trends, will provide an impetus for other groups to look at the problem using more sophisticated tools, including climate and reanalysis models.”

     In other words, even they admit the limits of their own analysis.

     In sum Cowtan & Way is not a sound basis for an argument that the empirically observed pause should be disregarded because: (1) the results are preliminary; (2) there is no consensus in the field (note e.g. Hansen’s disagreement); (3) the results are conjectural.

123. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 8:49 am

     Stephen Tardrew
     April 25, 2014 • 10:29 am
     If you are wrong, which you are, you are condemning vast number of citizens to lives of distress, poverty, hardship and death while eventually making the planet uninhabitable.
     —————————————–

     Actually Stephen, it’s catastrophists like yourself who are doing irreparable damage to the third world by denying them a cheap source of power (industrialization elevates people out of poverty) or the growing of biofuels instead of food, etc.

     [It appears my other comment, though successfully sent, has not appeared].

124. mars08April 26, 2014 at 9:01 am

     So-called “catastrophists” are doing irreparable damage to the third world by denying them a cheap source of power? Catastrophists are to blame for doing irreparable damage to the third world?

     Are we sure?

125. KeithApril 26, 2014 at 9:03 am

     Here is a film clip that gives a great overview on how climate change works, it neatly pulls apart common arguments that anthropogenic disbelieves use.
     

126. Kaye LeeApril 26, 2014 at 9:04 am

     “it’s catastrophists like yourself who are doing irreparable damage to the third world ”

     Ummm….you might want to consult the third world about that. They are kind of worried about rising sea levels and drought and more intense cyclones and flooding.

     Oxfam predicted that world hunger would worsen as climate change inevitably hurt crop production and disrupted incomes. They suggested the number of people at risk of hunger might climb by 10% to 20% by 2050, with daily per-capita calorie availability falling across the world.

     Developing country scientists and commentators have welcomed the IPCC report, which they said backed their own observations.

     “The IPCC makes the case that climate change is real and happening much more strongly than before. We are already seeing the effects of climate change in Bangladesh and across south Asia. It’s not news to us. Most developing countries are facing climate change now. They do not need the IPCC to tell them that the weather is changing”, said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development, based in Dhaka.

127. Kaye LeeApril 26, 2014 at 9:15 am

     warmists, alarmists, catastrophists, credentialists….the names keep coming but the science is sadly absent.

     If someone could provide credible evidence that AGW is not happening/harmful it would be welcomed by the world. The researchers would win Nobel prizes and be set for life. Even if they had a credible lead to follow, the fossil fuel industry would give them endless funds to pursue their research. If such scientific research exists I would like to see it. It would be helpful if you provide links, and perhaps look first whether the research has already been refuted.

128. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 9:25 am

     Kaye Lee: Rather than posting a huge slab from Wikipedia about Judith Curry, how about you read what climate scientists have to say about her and her work…Criticisms from climate scientists”

     http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry
     ————————————————————————-

     And just who are the contributors to Curry’s ‘laundry list’ at Laundry list at http://www.sourcewatch.org/?

     -Coby Beck, whose ‘claim to fame’ in climate science and politics is “How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic”

     http://www.cobybeck.com/

     -Tim Lambert, computer scientist (Deltoid)

     And the others? Well, it’s not my responsibility to check out the quality of /your/ sources.

129. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 9:34 am

     Kaye Lee: warmists, alarmists, catastrophists, credentialists….the names keep coming but the science is sadly absent.

     If someone could provide credible evidence that AGW is not happening/harmful it would be welcomed by the world.
     ——————————–
     Really Kaye Lee, spare me the melodramatics. ‘Denier’ is a far worse epithet than anything I have used (which are simply descriptive tags without moral opprobrium attached). Also: I am not the one who put a tin foil hat on a picture of Maurice Newman.

     Again you miss my point: CAGW is simply a hypothesis or conjecture. There is no evidence that is /is/ occurring. The warming we were promised is simply not there.

     As for me not relying on science, that is just hyperbole on your part.

     As for the third world: I don’t think you have a good grasp of third world/UN politics.

     Now, I hope my missing post appears.

130. Stephen TardrewApril 26, 2014 at 9:39 am

     Thank you Kaye.

     By the way your Lordship I am not a catastrophist but a rationalist and realist. Just labeling others does not make for facts or truth. I don’t wear blindfolds and wishfully hope that it is all going to go away. Facts are facts. Massive numbers of impoverished people will suffer. Try systems theory and projective modelling to determine probability pathways. Then er on the side of precaution to prevent severe disruptions. See no need for the scary fairy word catastrophe.

     None of you denialists have answered ShaunJ’s challenge because you can’t. Shaun has set you a task that you refuse to meet because you are peddling absolute rubbish.

     Your list is miniscule and Shaun’s rather extensive don’t you think. All this selective prejudice is not going to cut the mustard.

     You belong to a small minority which makes you statistically insignificant. You know that maths thingy. The number don’t lie.

     I have contributed more to the third world and those living hardship than you will ever do so don’t play the superior prat with me sunshine.

131. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 9:49 am

     Kaye Lee: warmists, alarmists, catastrophists, credentialists….the names keep coming but the science is sadly absent.
     ————————–

     Yes, nice level of discourse you maintain here:

     “ShaunJ
     April 25, 2014 • 2:00 am
     …fwit AndHurl … you have lost already moron”

     …

     ShaunJ
     April 25, 2014 • 2:04 am
     “…So come on dickwad AndHurl, … come on dick”

     …

     ShaunJ
     April 25, 2014 • 2:09 am
     “OMG, poor old AndHurl (the Fwit) has gone on home”

132. Kaye LeeApril 26, 2014 at 9:54 am

     How very odd. Both of those people were quoting climate scientists. If I linked to a scientific paper would you attribute that paper to Kaye Lee and then check my credentials?

     Tim Lambert: ““Tamino has written a detailed review of the [Montford] book with particular emphasis on two of the three main critiques that Curry identified. The response from Curry was perplexing. Instead of thanking Tamino for addressing the main critiques that she had identified, Curry wrote that the cons for Tamino’s review were: “numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, failure to address many of the main points of the book…” Pressed to identify these errors, Curry instead moved the goalposts, coming up with nine different “key points” of the book. When Gavin Schmidt demolished these, rather than concede that some, at least, were wrong, Curry asserted that Schmidt’s rebuttal was full of logical fallacies (though once again without identifying any of them at all)”

     Coby Beck: “…Examples of the unreliability of Curry’s blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis and James Annan, who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself. Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding in her own field’s basic terminology,”

     Michael Tobis holds a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin – Madison in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and is editor-in-chief of Planet3.0

     “It’s one thing to tolerate cranks. … It’s another thing entirely to encourage them and agree with them. Crank: ‘There are many forcings and some are known to be underrepresented in the modeling such as aerosols / clouds and black soot.’ curryja: ‘very true, same goes for solar also.’ … [I]f you buckle down and try to understand what she is saying (instead of just nodding in enthusiastic agreement with the “not the IPCC” position) it is incomprehensible.”

     James D. Annan is a scientist involved in climate prediction. He was a member of the Global Warming Research Program at Frontier Research Centre for Global Change which is associated with the Earth Simulator in Japan.

     ” “…she apparently conflates the concept of evidence for and against the proposition “most of the observed warming was very likely due to the GHG increase” with an estimate of the proportion of warming that was due to anthropogenic vs natural factors. This seems like a rather elementary point to get confused over … Note that in the very first premise of her argument, she only assigns 70% probability to the fact that surface temperatures actually show a warming at all! This is the warming that the IPCC famously called “unequivocal” in their 2007 report. As far as I can tell, at this point she is simply so far out of touch with mainstream climate science that her analyses aren’t worth the time it takes to read them. End of story.”

133. mars08April 26, 2014 at 9:54 am

     Those crazy, bleeding-heart hippies over at the IMF think that pricing carbon emissions is a good idea and want to “promote greener growth”. Bloody alarmists!!!!

134. AnomanderApril 26, 2014 at 9:55 am

     There is no argument left for climate change.

     There are tens of thousands of independent peer-reviewed studies, across multiple scientific disciplines, authored by thousands of scientists over many decades, all contributing to our collective understanding of the science and comprehensively supporting AGW as incontrovertible fact.

     Until such time as the deniers are able to provide a corresponding number of peer-reviewed studies that posit a plausible alternative theory, their words should be considered nothing more than that – uneducated conjecture and opinion, without foundation and merit; to be thoroughly ignored.

135. Michael TaylorApril 26, 2014 at 10:07 am

     Lord Jim, your post was caught up in our spam folder.

     Says to me that our spam filter is working rather well.

136. diannaartApril 26, 2014 at 10:14 am

     Good point, Kaye Lee

     If someone could provide credible evidence that AGW is not happening/harmful it would be welcomed by the world. The researchers would win Nobel prizes and be set for life. Even if they had a credible lead to follow, the fossil fuel industry would give them endless funds to pursue their research.

     All the money and power of the fossil fuel industries is not used to further credible. peer reviewed scientific research into climate and long term effects of pollution – why not?

137. Kaye LeeApril 26, 2014 at 10:19 am

     Same reason I don’t have a cholesterol test or a stress test or go to the optometrist. If you don’t do the test then you don’t have a problem

138. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 10:58 am

     Actually kaye lee what i expect in relation to comments on judith curry by climate scientists, are actual comments by climate scientists, not second hand reports Coby beck & tim lambett.

139. Stephen TardrewApril 26, 2014 at 11:12 am

     Lord Jim

     You’re really trying to choke me up now. I just don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I think the former is in order.

140. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 11:19 am

     Michael Taylor: the title of this blog piece (omniscience…) is unwittingly ironic. It’s only the religion of Cagw and its worshippers that pretends at omniscience. The refusal to even admit the existence of an empirical pause in warming is a perfect example of such religious thinking.

     As for your comment about the spam filter: dont worry, i return your contempt equally.

141. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 11:25 am

     Really stephen, you dont think that primary and secondary sources should be distinguished? (i assume your comment was directed at this issue)

142. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 11:30 am

     “It is about whether the ‘projections’ (really, one should day ‘predictions’ but CAGW proponents are shy of saying that word because it implies a standard of judgment)…”

     No.

     Quite apart from the sloppiness of using a term “CAGW” that is ill-defined, and AFAIK not defined at all by climate scientists, this statement embodies a fundamental error. Projections ARE NOT predictions, and any “logic” that treats them as such is invalid. For example:

     “it IS a well know fact that the empirical temperature rise has not accorded with the model projections”

     Well, one has to understand what model projections ARE before one can analyse that question. Almost everyone that claims the models are out of sync with reality has not done so, and that apparently includes you.

     First hint: the projections assume a forcings trajectory at the time they are made. How does that relate to the forcings trajectory that eventuates after they are made? Why does this question matter? Are there other factors whose trajectory is similarly relevant?

     Second hint: to what extent do you expect a projection of a signal – in any field including (say) engineering, not just climate science – to predict – not project – the outcome of noise processes? Why does the question matter? How does the answer affect the process of analysing the question of whether the projections are realistic or not?

     Having hopefully got that far, do you think that climate scientists got the answers to all of the (fairly straightforward) questions above wrong, or that these questions have never occurred to them, or…?

     Jim, you have revealed that your claims of certain facts are – in *fact* – based on an erroneous understanding that invalidates the logic you use to reach your conclusions. That includes your assertion that “The warming we were promised is simply not there.” If one has misidentified what was “promised” one’s conclusion that it has not been delivered is not valid.

     And yet you claimed your “facts” so *confidently*! Perhaps it would be smart to step back and reassess how you reach your positions, in light of the fact that you have clearly been using unreliable methods to reach conclusions and attribute way too much confidence to them? Are there other facts that you are confident of for similar reasons that may not actually be facts?

143. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 11:36 am

     “It’s only the religion of Cagw and its worshippers that pretends at omniscience.”

     Which is why the IPCC reports are just full of expressions conveying different levels of uncertainty, and the denialists are so completely confident that there is nothing to worry about.

     Oh, wait…

144. Kaye LeeApril 26, 2014 at 11:45 am

     And that is the point Lotharsson.

     I know why I am fighting so hard for urgent action on climate change – the risk is too great to ignore, the possible consequences too devastating, the evidence overwhelming, and the cost of delay is increasing

     Unless you have a vested interest in a short term grab for cash from a dying fossil fuel industry, why on earth would you be against stopping pollution and moving to renewable energy and sustainable practice even if you disagree about AGW?

145. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 11:51 am

     “The refusal to even admit the existence of an empirical pause in warming is a perfect example of such religious thinking.”

     One has to define “warming” and “pause” first, and one has to do it correctly in the context of a noisy signal and the inherent uncertainties in measurements of the noisy signal. You haven’t done so yet. If you do, you might find that acknowledgement is forthcoming, depending on the definition.

     I once saw a commenter at Deltoid spend page after page after page of comments ducking and weaving whilst asserting “there is a pause”, but refusing to define “pause” – let alone produce a robust definition suitable for applying to a noisy signal.

     Worse still, exactly like that commenter, you’ve gone straight from “there IS SO an empirical pause” to something like “that means the science is wrong” which you appear to use to imply “so we should do nothing except business as per usual”.

     I pointed out above that you base the middle part of that chain on at least two significant errors, and the last part of the chain is a really foolish conclusion. None of that would be invalidated if we agreed on a definition of “pause” and “warming” that let us agree that “there is an empirical pause in warming” (so be careful what you wish for on that front!)

     It’s rather interesting that you’re going into bat for the first part of the chain but appear to have totally ignored the massive flaws in the rest of it. Perhaps, as appeared to be the case with that other commenter, that’s the whole point of focusing on the first part? To try and get people to ignore the problems with the rest and just accept your “conclusions” regardless?

     Or is it simpler than that – you simply don’t comprehend the problems with how your conclusions are reached?

146. Michael TaylorApril 26, 2014 at 12:17 pm

     “I return your contempt equally”.

     Oh, I doubt it.

147. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 12:30 pm

     Contrarians tend to focus on attacking models, typically based on the line of thinking that if they can show the models are “wrong” we can all relax and continue with business as usual (and arguably because model results are easy to misrepresent or misunderstand to ordinary people).

     I pointed out above that this line of thinking is fallacious because uncertainty in knowledge of risks favours action rather than inaction. But equally importantly a strong case for concern arises from the evidence accumulated by climate science if we completely discard climate models.

     I also project that these points will never be acknowledged by most contrarians 😉

148. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 1:30 pm

     Lotharsson: “It is about whether the ‘projections’ (really, one should day ‘predictions’ but CAGW proponents are shy of saying that word because it implies a standard of judgment)…” No. Quite apart from the sloppiness of using a term “CAGW” that is ill-defined, and AFAIK not defined at all by climate scientists,”
     ——————————————————————-

     Actually there is a definition of AGW that distinguishes it from CAGW: it is simply the (logarithmic) warming effect of co2 sans the theoretical feedbacks.

     ——————————————————————-
     Lotharsson: “this statement embodies a fundamental error. Projections ARE NOT predictions, and any “logic” that treats them as such is invalid. For example:

     “it IS a well know fact that the empirical temperature rise has not accorded with the model projections”

     Well, one has to understand what model projections ARE before one can analyse that question. Almost everyone that claims the models are out of sync with reality has not done so, and that apparently includes you.

     First hint: the projections assume a forcings trajectory at the time they are made. How does that relate to the forcings trajectory that eventuates after they are made? Why does this question matter? Are there other factors whose trajectory is similarly relevant?

     Second hint: to what extent do you expect a projection of a signal – in any field including (say) engineering, not just climate science – to predict – not project – the outcome of noise processes? Why does the question matter? How does the answer affect the process of analysing the question of whether the projections are realistic or not?
     ——————————————————————-
     To which I would say:
     1. Yes, obviously a model makes assumptions about forcings.
     2. A projection is a species of prediction. If it was not it would have no utility whatsoever.
     3. If you are simply trying so say that the models use assumptions about what forcings will be, assumptions that do not necessarily accord with the actual empirical event, yes obviously. Does that mean an almost exponential increase in co2 and no temperature increase is not damaging for the hypothesis that co2 causes catastrophic global warming. No.
     4. If you mean that there are ‘other factors’ that are relevant as to why the ‘projected’ warming has not occurred. I say: if the ‘science is settled’ those ‘other factors’ (e.g. heat going into the ocean) should have been, where possible, plugged into the prior ‘projection’, not supplied as an ad hoc ameliorative after the event.
     5. ‘Other factors’ are simply used as fudge factors to make models agree with the known temperature record.

     ——————————————————————-
     Lotharsson: Having hopefully got that far, do you think that climate scientists got the answers to all of the (fairly straightforward) questions above wrong, or that these questions have never occurred to them, or…?
     ——————————————————————-
     What I think is that certain climate scientists, groups and individuals need to be less censorious and more open to the prospect that their conclusions are wrong.

     ——————————————————————-
     Lotharsson: Jim, you have revealed that your claims of certain facts are – in *fact* – based on an erroneous understanding that invalidates the logic you use to reach your conclusions.
     ——————————————————————-
     Actually Lotharson, what you are essentially saying is that CAGW is unfalsifiable (that might not be quite fair, but it’s more or less accurate). All one needs to do is identify the appropriate model ‘fudge factors’ and CAGW can always be ‘on the horizon’.

149. Lord JimApril 26, 2014 at 1:56 pm

     Michael Taylor
     April 26, 2014 • 12:17 pm
     “I return your contempt equally”.
     Oh, I doubt it.
     ——————————————-
     A simple: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” would have sufficed.

150. Möbius EckoApril 26, 2014 at 1:58 pm

     Energy Independence
     Preservation of rainforests
     Preservation of flora and fauna
     New and better jobs in sustainable technologies
     Increased jobs in environment renewal
     Livable cities
     Clean water and air
     Healthier populations
     ….

     What if global warming is a great big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

151. Michael TaylorApril 26, 2014 at 2:14 pm

     Point taken, Lord Jim. I accept that.

152. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 3:33 pm

     “Actually there is a definition of AGW that distinguishes it from CAGW: it is simply the (logarithmic) warming effect of co2 sans the theoretical feedbacks.”

     That wasn’t what I asked you to define. It’s very interesting that you refuse to define the strawman you so confidently assert is made of straw. Readers might care to speculate as to why that is…

     Notably, your red herring isn’t even a definition of AGW that scientists use, and for good reason! We know that many feedbacks exist and we have a number of disparate lines of evidence about their total magnitude in the long term.

     And since I’m addressing your red herring: do you *truly* want to appear stupid enough to insist that when we want to measure or project how much human influences have warmed the climate that we insist on excluding all feedbacks that operate in response to … well, to human influences? Would you acquit the arsonist who threw a lit match into tinder dry bushland on the basis that he didn’t cause the resulting bush fire, just the ignition of the match?

153. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 3:34 pm

     “Does that mean an almost exponential increase in co2 and no temperature increase is not damaging for the hypothesis that co2 causes catastrophic global warming. No.”

     (1) “Almost exponential” is an almost entirely meaningless term. The rate of annual CO2 emissions is going up but not dramatically. Over the time period you appear to be talking about a linear approximation to atmospheric CO2 is pretty good, even more so since the forcing is logarithmic in that concentration. Here’s roughly the last 20 years of CO2 concentration:

     http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1994/plot/esrl-co2/from:1994/trend

     Anyone else see an “almost exponential” rise? Anyone but Lord Jim that is?

     (2) You ignored my point (as projected!)

     (3) You continue to raise straw men via undefined terms (albeit here it appears to be a slight variation from the acronym you have been using).

     (4) The “damage” depends on “the hypothesis”, which in this case also depends on the definition of “catastrophic global warming”, a definition that you refuse to supply. You appear to be wedded to “a hypothesis” about short term surface temperature outcomes that climate scientists have not advanced (and that can only be “damaged” by ignoring the influence of other factors). That is yet another example of you appearing to claim “facts” that are not factual.

     If you (choose to) understand what the scientists *actually* say, you’ll find it a lot harder to dismiss what they say or allege “damage” based on recent surface temperatures. You appear to be choosing not to understand…and readers might be tempted to think the reason is obvious.

154. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 3:37 pm

     “I say: if the ‘science is settled’ those ‘other factors’ (e.g. heat going into the ocean) should have been, where possible, plugged into the prior ‘projection’, not supplied as an ad hoc ameliorative after the event”

     (1) Many of these were not possible at the time because current knowledge wasn’t known then, unless you happen to have in your possession a time machine, so your objection is invalid on those grounds. Furthermore computational capacity is *always* insufficient to incorporate everything known at the time into any model of a complex system, so even where factors were historically understood to a sufficient level for modelling purposes, they couldn’t always be incorporated.

     One has to understand what a model is and is not, and what it is useful for and what it is not useful for, and how to use and not use the results. Your arguments, like so many contrarian tilts at models, appear to be based on misunderstanding these things.

     (2) Factors (known well or very little) that can’t be modelled at the time contribute to “noise” in the model output. That makes it very relevant that you ignored my point about projecting realisations of noise processes. Did it go over your head or can your argument not withstand an honest answer to it?

     (3) “The science is settled” is rarely what scientists say because they are careful with caveats and uncertainties and current limits on knowledge, so sheeting it back to them is fallacious.

     When most people use it, it’s not used to mean that all processes are completely understood and characterised with high accuracy. It means (or should mean) that understanding is *sufficient* that the risk of very undesirable outcomes cannot be ruled out.

     And in this case it’s worse than that: very undesirable outcomes cannot even be ruled “unlikely” any more, and some of them are pretty much in the “likely” bucket with the major remaining uncertainty being not if they will occur, but when.

     Unfortunately, nothing you have written challenges that. And I say “unfortunately” without a hint of sarcasm because I’d REALLY LIKE someone to be able to successfully challenge it. That would mean we can all relax about the whole thing! But “successful” means mounting a robust evidence-based argument which you have not done, and neither have even the most highly credentialed contrarian climate scientists.

155. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 3:43 pm

     “What I think is that certain climate scientists, groups and individuals need to be less censorious and more open to the prospect that their conclusions are wrong.”

     (1) The calls to be “less censorious” come almost exclusively from those that can’t mount a robust evidence-based case – as you have delightfully illustrated.

     (2) Scientists are open. That’s exactly what one opens oneself up to when you publish in the peer-reviewed literature (and speaking of models, many of them can be downloaded for free). Anyone, scientist or otherwise, credentialed or otherwise, can publish a paper calling a scientist’s work bullshit – as long as they can mount a robust evidence-based case!

     What scientists are NOT willing to entertain is ignorant opinion or arguments that aren’t grounded in the evidence and logic, (especially after the first dozen times they have been presented). This is not being close minded, it is being scientific.

     And I am open too! As I keep pointing out I’d be deliriously happy if we found out our concerns about human induced climate change were misplaced! But I won’t cheer on happy fantasy bullshit based on false “facts” and fallacious logic (especially since that kind of thing is being deliberately used to delay action which only increases the severity of the problem and the eventual cost to fix it).

     (And it’s a lovely irony that the denialists call for more openness but are hardly ever open to the possibility themselves. Or as I say at Deltoid with only a hint of exaggeration: “it’s always projection”.)

156. LotharssonApril 26, 2014 at 3:46 pm

     “what you are essentially saying is that CAGW is unfalsifiable (that might not be quite fair, but it’s more or less accurate).”

     (1) You are putting words into my mouth. Please don’t misrepresent my position! I don’t know what you mean by the term “CAGW” and I don’t use the term. Hence there’s no way I can “essentially say” that it is unfalsifiable because I don’t say ANYTHING about it.

     (2) If you care to define the term “CAGW” we can talk about whether your definition matches what the scientists say, and *IF* and only if it does, then we can discuss falsifiability. However I project that you won’t do that because you won’t like the resulting discussion.

     Or to put it another way: be careful what you wish for: you can’t escape basic physics by defining terms like CAGW, and you can’t escape a science-based case by raising a strawman case instead.

157. Douglas EvansApril 26, 2014 at 6:01 pm

     Lord Jim
     Judith Curry said this about her Sourcewatch profile:
     “There is a section on criticisms from climate scientists, citing devastating critiques from the likes of William Connolley, Michael Tobis, James Annan, and Thingsbreak(!)
     This reflects the true democratization of the blogosphere, which I am all in favor of. Now I’m not really a snob about all this, but I would have preferred the criticisms to be from the likes of Gavin Schmidt and Joe Romm, who have more stature.”

     Well Joe Romm is not a climate scientist but his credentials to speak in this field are good enough for Judith Curry and most sane persons but perhaps not for you?

     Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called “the indispensable blog” and Time magazine named one of the 25 “Best Blogs of 2010.” In 2009, Rolling Stone put Romm #88 on its list of 100 “people who are reinventing America.” Time named him a “Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s most influential climate-change blogger.” Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT.

     Of Judith Curry Romm says:
     “My one-time lecture-circuit companion, Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, has now taken the crown as the most debunked person on the science blogosphere, which is quite a feat considering the competition. But she invites debunking by her tendency to make scientific-sounding pronouncements without having actually read the relevant literature, and then backing down the minute she is challenged by someone who has or who has actually contributed to that literature.”

     Romm continues:
     “… and then there’s her tendency to libel people.” In an interview with Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle she dismissed Romm and Gavin Schmidt from Real Climate as follows: “Oh yes. Those guys are directly involved in Climategate so that’s not a huge surprise.”

     Not. I pointed out to Berger that just because he’s publishing an interview doesn’t mean he is free to print comments that he knows to be false and libelous.”

     Romm comments:
     “… notwithstanding Curry’s effort to smear me (and Schmidt) and doubly notwithstanding the fact that the people who actually were directly involved in Climategate have all been vindicated by multiple independent investigations — I was not directly involved in Climategate. And notwithstanding the implication of Berger’s note, I was not indirectly involved — unless writing about it constitutes involvement, in which case both Berger and Curry were involved in Climategate. Let’s call it non-guilt by non-association with people who weren’t guilty of anything.”

     James D. Annan is a scientist involved in climate prediction. He was a member of the Global Warming Research Program at Frontier Research Centre for Global Change which is associated with the Earth Simulator in Japan. In 2014 he left Japan, returning to the United Kingdom as a co-founder of Blue Skies Research.

     Annan said of Curry:
     “She’s really building up quite a history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong. … If she ever deigns to address the substantive point on probability, maybe she can let me know, but I’m not holding my breath. Her main tactic seems to be throwing up layers upon layers of an increasing shaky edifice as quickly as possible hoping that no-one will notice that the foundations are collapsing as quickly as people can read.”

     Mark Boslough is a physicist. He is a member of the technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories, an adjunct professor at University of New Mexico, and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Asteroid 73520 Boslough (2003 MB1) was named after him. Boslough is a vocal critic of pseudoscience and anti-science and has written about climate change denial in the Skeptical Inquirer in reference to “Climategate” conspiracy theories. He is also active in uncovering scientific misconduct.

     Boslough says of the science of climate change denial (or more politely contrarian climate science):
     “There is no consistent contrarian science, and there is no defining contrarian ideology or motivation. Some are sincere. Others are angry at their lack of funding. Some appear to be envious of the IPCC scientists’ success, and others have found a niche that gets them attention they would not otherwise get. Only a few appear to be motivated by politics. No single label applies to them, and I found myself referring to them as “contrarians/skeptics/deniers/enablers/provocateurs/publicity-seekers”.

     The one common thread I found among them was the fervent belief that “Climategate” was a conspiracy and that the IPCC is rigged. This faith-based belief seems to be unshakable, and is the antithesis of true skepticism. Those I met were uniformly cynical about the honesty and motivations of mainstream scientists. If I were forced to use a single label, I would be inclined to call them “science cynics”.

     Is that you Lord Jim? A science cynic?

158. KeithApril 26, 2014 at 6:02 pm

     Jim, Dr Milne gives a very good account of what comprises science and what does not, reference above.

     Here is a film clip about Greenland where it is acknowledged that climate change is happening; its pretty up to date (2013)..

     Climate change disbelievers, say models do not accurately portray what is happening; there are quite a number of glaciologists who believe that models are behind in what’s happening in the Arctic region.
     Disbelievers do not countenance the Polar Vortex hypothesis; but whenever it is mentioned there are pretty well always comments about the Arctic area being warm in comparison to past years. Temperatures have been slowly increasing since satellites have been used from 1979.

159. Rosemary (@RosemaryJ36)May 9, 2015 at 7:34 pm

     From 1954 to 1957 I studied at Imperial College London for a BSc (Special) Mathematics. I had a fellow student who was a self-avowed communist. Whenever we discussed politics, he gradually shifted from arguing that black was white to arguing that white was black but at no time would he ever admit any flaw in his logic. This seems to be a trait shared by the climate deniers.