The possibility of a diamond planet way off in the distance has very little to do with public policy, the direction taken by world economies, or choices that may determine our very existence.

I understand the point but it's really a very narrow perspective lined with conflated rhetoric.

Your first point is valid - and the phenomenon bizarre. The analogy is that of a person being pushed from an aircraft and as he descends he uses his mobile phone to ring his wife to inform her that Newton was indeed a tosser and he'll be home sooner than expected.

The faller intensely dislikes the possible, or in this case probable, implications of physical reality so it deny reality by slagging the discoverers of those physical properties.

Rhetoric, nope.

Thank you Mathew for a most interesting and well written article.

No Frank - not surprised. And I think you are spot on

This cartoon makes it clear I think

http://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS-Weekly-Digest_11.html

We prefer a reassuring lie to an inconvenient truth.

But facts are facts - however unpleasant. Either we wise up as a society and grapple with the unpleasant realities or we pay the price.

Unfortunately, the only "rave reviews" climate scientists get are those of fellow scientists. The population at large ignores them or outright reviles them, while embracing non-scientific alternatives.

Actually, it's a shame that if you don't count those that believe in a catastrophic "Climate Change" as a fact despite evidence being sketchy, and those who deny the evolution of the species, in the US you end up with very few remaining prudent, reasonable people. It's like the left and the right both needed their own way to butcher science for political reasons. The fact that creationism is untenable, while AGW has some credibility, only helps further murkying of the waters, with too many clever people being swept away with the impression that everything is obvious, and there are some journalistic sources that are 100% right because they are left-leaning.

you read this entire article that's what you got out of it? the entire point was that it doesn't matter how the media reports it, the scientific community is self correcting, and that community has accepted man made climate change as well supported

If that is the point then the article is wrong. Evidence against AGW has been suppressed (just ask Jasper Kirkby who is just recently been able to proceed with his research). The UN-IPCC reports have been doctored (the UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today, but the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period.) Not to mention that the AGW models don't match observed readings (take a look at data accumulated by the UN-IPCC itself, but analyzed and published by NIPCC http://www.nzcpr.com/guest98.htm). We are nowhere near the temperature or sea level changes that the AGW models predicted. Generally, those who study models think AGW is real and those who actually study the climate don't.
The "scientific community" is not immune to bias and suppression of unwanted results. The scientific method is, but that is not taking people into account.

Obviously the author is part of the Copernicean cabal intent on imposing a centralized galactic government and wasting our tax dollars on astrophysical 'theories'.

Astrophysical calculations routinely yield results that simply don't agree with telescopic observations, so the entire field is obviously a hoax. Just like the moon landing.

Mike: the science is self correcting, but only on the long term!
Peter: sarcasm is an easy way to avoid discussing critical issues, while still acting smug and in control.
Mark: the point is, Kirkby is behaving admirably, considering the typical attitudes shown by people in the field. But he's in fact displaying the prudence and self restraint that would theoretically be needed by all scientists.
Sadly, this is not the case.

When scientists are seriously debating about things like the assumed relying on buckets (or maybe not) for ships' water temperature measurements from Pearl Harbor to the 80s, or the merits of choosing the _sign_ to attribute to a given proxy for temperature; or when datasets gets lost, fudge factors are introduced and so on, the scenario is completely different from hard science, where you can devise an experiment and reproduce the results in another laboratory.

You have to admit the situation is less than ideal. The buckets were just an example: relying on guesses about what buckets were used (or not) for an entire generation in order to reconstruct a measurement's systematic errors is hardly a way to get scientific results. Ex post facto you can minimize this problem's impact on broader data collections, and this was just a random issue i casually came across yesterday. But the problem of not having reproducible results still remains.
It's absurd to expect independent vetting to be based on FOIA requests; as it's sad to hear that for a certain measurements, the raw, unadjusted data had been lost.
Predictions are about trends plotted with statistical errors (providing there are no systematic errors) that are often of the same order of magnitude of the signal. Excuse me while I'm unimpressed.

Of course, in the long term facts trump personal convictions. As it happened in tectonics.
But here we are in a special situation, where the whole point is supposedly to "act" before getting this long term validation benefit.

So where - pray tell - is your evidence of suppression which you asserted?

Opinion doesn't counter fact - not does unfounded assertion establish truth.

The truth and facts are these

1) The Greenhouse effect is a real physicial phenomenon well established
2) CO2 is a greanhouse gas that has been on the increase
3) isoptopic and other evidence shows that man put it there (in excess of the natural re-cycling ability)
4) Increased greenhouse gases increase the warming of the planet (and lead to increasing Ocean acidification)
5) Such impacts would be expected to increase average temperature (observed), lead to more warmer nights (observed) more days with average temperatures and average highs well in excess of records (observed) increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather (observed) increasing ocean ph levels (observed) retreating global galcier mass (observed) and retreating artic ice mass (oberserved) as well as increasing sea levels (observed)

All these observations should properly be assessed over decades rather than individusal years and the trend is inexorablly showing that AGW is real and a problem.

Only blind ignorant foolishness on the part of those who seek to deny these facts is getting in the way of considered action to address these problems.

The fact that you are attributing to me a conspiracy theory about suppression does not mean that I said so.
But, keeping an open mind, I've read about a number of questionable, unscientific practices, or studies that want to read too much into limited data, being cavalier about huge error bars. This, coupled with the red hot political climate, the name calling and hysteria of the media, should give everyone pause. There are good reasons to believe that only a few scientist can keep their cool and be objective. Would you say you don't raise an eyebrow when some scientists suggests that the total ocean plankton has halved since 1899 due to global warming?
Bad science, even in peer reviewed journals, happens everyday. Face it. And not only in third tier sources, either. The plankton example is from Nature, if I recall correctly.
I'm not saying that I'm giving "skeptics" a free pass. There's plenty of crackpots.
But let me say one thing: it's precisely the Taliban attitude of people like you that gave me reason to doubt the objectivity of a sector where so much pressure is underway.
You see the world in black and white, almost every new study or correction to previous data seems to show that things are even worse than thought.
Heck, even if you were right, it's your fault to drive people away with the strength of such a contemptuous hubris! Start by chastising the Al Gores, the ideologues of all-green, the preposterous connections drawn to anything imaginable, the "weather-is-not-climate-unless-it's-of-the-right-kind" and so on. Then you'd be more credible.

Regarding your summarizing in 5 points.
Don't you understand that with this kind of reasoning, we'd have found thousands of "effective" cures for cancer? Theoretically sound approaches, supporting drugs that give spectacular results in vitro, then some measurable improvements in patients, are still not real cures.

That's a large amount of irrelevant verbal gymnastics to avoid confronting or refuting the simple facts I have raised in support of AGW.

If you cannot refute them or publish some good science to make a case to overturn well established science then I fail to see how anything you say warrants a substnative contribution

You cannot declare an idea false by conflating it with another idea, completely unrelated and demonstrably false, only because in your mind they are connected.

their

(hangs head)

Very well said Dubz... And when they start wanting to tax me to save the planet because "Diamonds" are the next threat to "Gaia", I will stand up and protest on that issue as well.

The shame is that you you do not use your brian to realise that there is a very real cost to fossil fuel use/CO2 emissions pollution now that we are all paying (but producers are not).

These costs are enormous even without climate change. The burning of Coal for example produces 600x the deaths per KWh of power produced compared to Solar PV. The health cost burden of premature deaths etc (in the IS alone) from Fossil Fuel burning is estimated to be about $120B US per year according to the US National Academy of Sciences.

Dubz2008 "And not that long ago a man was killed by scientists for claiming the earth was round, not flat."

I am not sure who you are thinking about here - Are you thinking of Giordano Bruno, the Italian philosopher who proposed that the sun was a star and that cosmological theories needed to go beyond the Copernican model to explain observed facts?

If so, he wasn't killed by scientists, but by the Catholic Church - burned in fact for heresy on charges of holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, Incarnation, the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus, transubstantiation the existence of a plurality of worlds, believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes, and dealing in magics and divination.

Bruno was a philosopher and mathematician - executed by the church for his science. Most of those excoriating climate scientists (better than executing at least) tend to take the same approach of "we do not like what you say, thus we condemn you for it" rather than testing their own hypothesis against observable data.

Cry me a river Mark.

"wikileaks-like release"

LOLz @ the doublespeak phrase for "hacking"

Screeching "conspiracy!" often does not mean one exists. Just ask the 9/11 Truthers and Alien Abduction proponents.

How has "peer review" become such a joke? Out damn spot!!

from the emails thankfully exposed to the light to show the crime.

Example one is the email from Tom Wigley to IPCC author Timothy Carter about the Climate Research journal, then edited by sceptic Chris de Freitas before his public beheading to discourage AGW blasphemy.

"PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame—he encourages the publication of (peer reviewed) crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter—50+ people.Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work—must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

Further emails from the team in its successful pursuit of de Freitas’ scalp:

#1047388489
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?

#1047390562
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor…

It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past."

but the fraud continues with cover-up comissions consisting of cardinals of the AGW religion, who depend on taxes to support their church of AGW. Copernicus spins in his grave.

Why would Copernicus be spining in his grave?

Is peer review only a joke (in your view) in climate science - or in all sciences (to get back to the orgins of this article).

The East Anglia team has been cleared by several inquiries, but, even if there had been actual wrongdoing do you think it would be appropriate to therefore claim that all other scientists involved in climate research are involved in some conspiracy. Do you know how many people you are accusing and how impossible it is to conspire at that scale?

Well said Jack, your summation is perfect. The lie is becoming unraveled and the Whistle Blower at East Anglia exposed the lies and con and should be praised as a hero.

Climate science, unlike most other science, has become a multi-billion dollar/pound/euro industry where careers, departments, and thousands of support staff are dependent upon the unfounded fears they create to scare the public into turning food into fuel, and thus starving many to death in the name of AGW.
the panels created to "investigate" East Anglia never talked to those who were victims of the cabal. They spent less than four days examining 20 years worth of work.
Having been on many peer review panels over many decades, there are some that are good, but many that are the equivalent of modern-day flat earth societies, which is why most of the IPCC "findings" dealing with the "peer reviewed" hockey stick, glacial melting, and other "facts" have been removed when actual facts show them to be false. The IPCC panel of over 2,000 consists of less than 5% climate scientists. The majority are politicians and functionaries reliant on taxes to keep their jobs in a scam created by Thatcher to discredit union coal miners in the early 80's. Many client scientists who were on the IPCC resigned when they realized they were being used as beards for nonsense.

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/the-biggest-scandal-of-all-is-this.html

I do ot think anyone who promotes conspircacy theories about 911 has any credibility whatsoever - perhaps when you offer some evidence for your ridiculous claims someone might listen :)

Your evidence for this is zero.

All inquiries (3 independent ones now I believe) have made it clear there was no malfeasance or wrongdoing associated with East Anglia - but of course there's no convincing flat-earth creationist anti-evolution denilaists is there?

Maybe you should look at this site and explain why it's wrong?

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Your comments are ridiculous

The inquiries to the East Anglia telling information release were just white washes. Have you even read the emails? I have a copy of them all on my hard drive and the ones highlighted by the many researchers who went through these emails is shocking, I confirmed these fruadsters had written what had been claimed and I was shocked. It's clear corrupt fraud, visible with my own eyes, I don't care what some bogus inquiry had uncovered. it's almost as good as the police investigating police deaths in custody in the UK, Since 1998, 333 people have died in the custody of police, ZERO convictions.

And you want me to take some inquiry on CRU of East Anglia seriously?! Give me a break.

Ad hominem attacks Mar, it's the standard practice of people who have no ammunition left in their bullshit gun.

I want you to look at the NASA site - and every single site of every accredited national sience body and explain why they are wrong - with evidence as opposed to trumped up claims

There is nothing ad hominem about me pointing out you offer no evidence - when I have offered plenty. As to my references to your 911 conspiracy position - well - these go the credibility of your position - which is zero

Well looks like they delete my reply exposing the con of the NASA linked site.

No one said the planet wasn't warming, but CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION so I don't care how much "consensus" you have, there is NO CLEAR PROVABLE LINK BETWEEN HUMANS CREATED CO2 AND WARMING.

To even bring up the notion that humans are more powerful than the sun and cosmic influences is absurd to say the least. I mean you can postulate all you like and pat yourselves on the back thinking how fantastic you all are with your AGW theory, but when it comes to crippling the country and destroying humanity, that's where I take a stand!

They deleted it because you indulged in that which you accuse others of - namely ad-hominem attacks in describing climate scientists using a foul pejorative.

I note you have failed to refute the evidence of the NASA site or explained why you know better than every single national science body of credibility.

Perhaps you have poor understanding of the science? - no-one is saying that correlation =causation. There are well cited peer reviewed papers that establish a provable link. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are merely unaware of these.

Here are the facts

1) The Greenhouse effect is a real physical phenomenon well established
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has been on the increase
3) isotopic and other evidence shows that man put it there (in excess of the natural re-cycling ability) as a result of fossil fuel emissions
4) Increased greenhouse gases increase the warming of the planet (and lead to increasing Ocean acidification)
5) Such impacts would be expected to increase average temperature (observed), lead to more warmer nights (observed) more days with average temperatures and average highs well in excess of records (observed) increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather (observed) increasing ocean ph levels (observed) retreating global glacier mass (observed) and retreating arctic ice mass (observed) as well as increasing sea levels (observed)

All these observations should properly be assessed over decades rather than individual years and the trend is inexorably showing that AGW is real and a problem.

There are even well cited papers that establish the increase in warming cannot be explained by natural causes - here is but one of them
Rosenzweig et al (2008). "Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change"
Nature 453, 353-357.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf
Science is in the business of generating reliable, evidence-based explanations that model reality as accurately as humanly possible, as judged by our ability to predict and explain things. Because it is only by seeing things as they are do our actions provide benefits to all.
The climate science of AGW fits this bill well, despite the attempts of deniers and bloggers to cherry pick irrelevancies and distortions to fit their irrational world view.

The empirical imperative of science is not only rational, it becomes a positive ethical obligation when we engage in collective projects that affect the lives of millions.

Non-empirical non-evidence based rants have no cognitive competence in any real domain.

Fear and the spread of misinformation can harm us all
Perhaps you should consider this when next you post about such things

Conspiracy theories and extremism are fueled, as a reaction, by many of the attitudes shown by liberal media, activist scientist that get arrested for protesting in the streets, and yes, of course, fast tracks to bad papers that support the consensus, or the inappropriate deeds shown in the so-called Climategate. Yes, some of it has been blown out of proportion. And yes, many biased commentators don't even know what they are criticizing. There's still a lot of bad science going on, and signs of it emerge. These things are helping those looneys who are against science and against evidence, and you needn't go far to find them.

Again no matter verbal gymnastics you indulge in to obfuscate your position - it really is simple

Just answer the evidence - either you accept the reality of AGW or you don't

If not, why not - and what is your established evidence to overturn the well established science I have already posted that establishes the reality of AGW beyond any reasonable doubt.

Dear Mark, no matter how many times you repeat the "AGW is real" line, it does not actually make it real just because you repeat it.

I skimmed over Cynthia Rosenzweig paper and without having to take the time to read every word, my only comment is that, they're basing their data on other IPCC published material, which is the first point of concern. Government funded papers intent on creating climate alaramism to keep the authors employed and secondly after skimming about 50% of the article I just didn't see the AGW connection to the observed changes from warming.

Just for you Mark, one day I will read it word for word while I sit by the ocean watching the sea levels drop (*NASA) but if this is the best you have, I suggest doing better.

I note that again you have persistently failed to rationally refute anything or offer any from of evidence.

AGW is, alas, real because of the 5 points I outlined and the abundant evidence which you continue to ignore.

This clearly demonstrates the cognitive competence of your statements. Which is to say - none.

You will obviously continue to maintain your position from behind your demonstrably not eponymous pseudonym.

I am content nevertheless to let readers of this post draw their own conclusions from your persistent failures to demonstrate any form of rational or evidence based argument.

I already made an extensive reply to the NASA linked site, the perpetuating con that is promoted by you and your AGW hoaxsters, it was deleted and I cannot be bother retyping and relinking the proof and counter arguments to this Con.

Sure, delete my reply and then tell me I am not answering, I cannot really expect anything more from the scamsters in the AGW agenda.

I will leave you with one last comment... "Man Bear Pig"

You missed the point completely. I was talking of the disturbing fact that, since some aspects of climate science have been politicized and declared settled beyond facts, this created enough extra excuses for people who want to attack science to do so gaining some more approval from the general population. If you are not rigorous, even 9/11 truthers may get reinforced in their conspiracy theories.

"either you accept the reality of AGW or you don't": are you kidding me? What is this, some sort of faith?
What happened to measurable results? The whole point of contention is the magnitude of an effect, and you are implying that one has just to either accept or reject the whole concept...

No one has said anything is "settled beyond facts" except you - it's actually a pretty silly statement.

Acceptance of the reality of AGW is a belief substantiated by a vast body of consistent evidence - exactly the opposite of faith. If you have substantive evidence to overturn this reality - please offer it. It would be welcome.

But so far all you have done is cherry pick issues, offer up furphies and not address the basic physics or evidence.

The evidence and the measurable results are there but apparently you are unable to see them or deal with the basic physics.

If you want to offer substantive arguments about the size of the problem and impact - please do so - but then you need to offer evidence to support your contention other than mere assertions.

There is ample evidence that the likely downsides of increased warming will be quite harmful, and incidentally fall most heavily on the poor around the globe. You can see more about this at www.skepticalscience.com. There are also many articles suitable for the lay person available at Scientific American which report on peer reviewed literature studies showing the impacts of the shifts on weather patterns, rising sea levels etc are most likely to reduce the globes ability to produce food - and that's just one area of concern

I didn't say (obviously!) that people declare something "settled beyond facts"; I said that people declare the matter "settled", while instead it's still beyond what we know as a fact. You see, I tried to answer in a polite and measured manner, but you accused me twice of engaging in "verbal gymnastics". I'd call _this_ verbal gymnastic: your misconstruing a sentence of the opponent as something silly.

A random post buried in an article is not the place to re-evaluate the whole interpretation of an incomplete, developing branch of science.
You can't defend your conflating some generic facts about explanations of mechanisms influencing the climate, with incomplete yet blessed computer models and their wildly variable assessment of the magnitude of AGW, with exaggerated predictions of doom due to a minor increase in temperature, with absolutely insane plans to completely transform civilization just to reduce the amount of CO2, and then pretend that either people accept the whole kaboose, or come up on the spot with a different explanation of climate, complete with refutations based on data.
You are very determined and aggressive in contrasting everyone who's not agreeing, but this is a recipe for creating a consensus without a sound basis. And there are legions of activist doing the same, shaming whoever has doubts.

The words "declared settled beyond facts" are in your post for all to see.

You did not say "people declare the matter "settled", while instead it's still beyond what we know as a fact"

This is in black and white above.

That is what I mean and meant by verbal gymnastics.

To overturn the established science of AGW you either have to overturn the points I have raised which are well established OR find an alternative mechanism that has been overlooked.

I hope that can be done but so far no-one has managed to do it convincingly and had such a mechanism published and peer reviewed literature - which is how scienc advances - by subjecting one's evidence and arguments to collective criticism and feedback. Bloggers in the meanwhile can say all they like - it doesn't change the reality

You are lucky that by now we are probably the only 2 reading this. You insist on accusing me of using verbal gymnastic, while it's evidently you acting like that.
The passage is: "some aspects of climate science have been politicized and declared settled beyond facts"; which could be INTERPRETED to mean either
1. they have been both politicized and declared settled, but this declaration is beyond what the real facts are
or
2. they have been declared "settled beyond facts"
Let's say the phrase _per se_ is not precise as to clarify whether the "beyond facts" tidbit is part of my description, or part of the thought attributed to Greens.
Now, no sane person would EVER think that something can be true even beyond facts. It is absurd to attribute to others such a motive.
From this, any reader can easily avoid imagining that I meant something silly like that, when I wrote the passage.
Only someone who's grasping at straws (and so engaging in verbal gymnastics, thus accusing me of forcing him to do so) would ever dare to attribute to another person an incoherent thought, just because a phrase _could_ be interpreted that way.
As much as I try to keep the content short while avoiding ambiguous phrases or passages that might be interpreted in the worst possible fashion, there is still room for voluntary misunderstanding.
The bottom line: a tactic like that may work, as a low blow, in front of a crowd. But between us... are you trying to convince me that I'm wrong about things, by insisting that I meant something different from what I know I meant?
Face it, in this circumstance you are behaving like the 9/11 truthers do. The only difference is that they are maintaining insane thought, while instead you are trumpeting thoughts that are reasonable; but they are reasonable _despite_ what you do, not because of you.

As for the matter at hand, again: one scientific theory may be incomplete and/or off in numerical terms, so you can't request a criticism that underlines the grey areas and the fact that it's far from settled, to be based on pretending to prove that some basic facts that you enumerate, supporting it, are somehow completely wrong without scientists noticing it.

Alessandro I think it was Popper who said "It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood" so I will certainly accept you didn't mean what it appears you said.

But I still think you are obfuscating and dancing around the issue.

Do accept the reality of AGW or not? (by which I mean that climate change is human induced and a problem). It's actually a fairly simple question that is capable of a straightforward even if nuanced answer. Yes and No are but two extremes of the answer.

Perhaps you think it real but disagree about the scope of the problem. Fine, say so.

Either way given that the weight of the evidence and the expert opinion seems to fall on the side of it being real and a serious problem I think it not unreasonable to put a fair portion of the burden of "disproof" on those who think it not real or not a problem.

So far I am yet to see a convinceing evidence based argument from you on that.

You fail to recognize that this page is not about the content of AGW theories, but the contention that the science in some fields is politicized, where the original poster pretends to depict the situation as if the politicization were only to come from one side.
On the contrary, critiques to AGW (often too harsh and unsubstantiated) are a recent development, while Green Scares are a sinister industry dating from decades ago.
"Denialists" are actually reacting against an ideology trying to take control of every aspect of human life through CO2 emission reduction.
It's not just us being unable to accept an undesirable ideology winning over the entire planet.
Or the fact that environmentalists have proven themselves to use false arguments and being very aggressive and unreasonable.
The whole point is this: we'd need to accept that an extraordinary coincidence has occurred. That just at the right moment, when the Green Movement was stronger and capable of deeply influencing policies, culture, media and teachers; when pollution and environmental laws were a done deal, so you could run out of causes to root for; just when so many "watermelons" wanted to use green ideas as an excuse for their deeper motives; well, at this very moment in history, by a remarkable chance, supposedly an unprecedented global crisis compelled humanity to conform to the dictates of this very clique. This of course being scientifically proven.
People don't believe that. It's too convenient to be true. Especially when signs emerge pointing in the direction of the "science" being somewhat tilted in the direction of confirming the green bias.
Of course, CO2 is a greenhouse gas per se, but this doesn't prevent the proposed CO2 reduction programs from being UTTERLY INSANE. On the other hand, predictions of catastrophes are a different point to examine; they clearly appear to be _wildly_ exaggerated (and pointless given the opportunity to use 22nd century technology to tackle them).
As for the climate models, again they are a different topic; and they are generally reasonable _as models_, but declaring their predictions as settled is anti-scientific.
Even AGW proponents admit the models fail to take into account the clouds/water cycle; no model can be declared to be correct after admitting it doesn't include some key aspects of the actual physics.
There is a very strong argument to be made about cosmic rays being the main driver of climate. AGW proponents, even scientists, are fighting tooth and nails against admitting this even as a possibility.
I don't (pretend to) know how much of the warming we experienced was due to CO2 we emitted, or how much we can expect. My money is on a pretty uneventful outcome, since as I said the models are incomplete (probably ignoring natural causes to the recent T raise), and they are conveniently ruling out the possibility of significant negative feedbacks, e.g. from clouds.

Oh please - what a load of rubbish!

1st Ivar Giaver is not a climate scientist - but a mech eng trained solid state physicist with recent work in bio physics. He's been a known "skeptic" for ages but has never published a single piece of climate science or anything on the topic.

His resigning in protest at the American Physical Society statements on the validity of Global warming is like Hussein Bolt resigning from the International Association of Athletics Foundations resigning because he does't like how they conduct Marathons. Makes for good headlines but isn't relevant because he doesn't really know what he is talking about and hasn't studied the subject.

Your comments on the NASA site are just rubbish - as if an individual has such power? what a joke! In any event the site merely presents the data which has been collected, assessed, analysed, validated and published by virtually every single creible climate science body on the planet.

Of course it is a common tactic of denialists to seize on one little thing and blow it out of all proportion. The fact is I am yet to see anyone anywhere properly refutre (with evidence) the established science.

Namely

1) The Greenhouse effect is a real physical phenomenon well established
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has been on the increase
3) isotopic and other evidence shows that man put it there (in excess of the natural re-cycling ability) as a result of fossil fuel emissions
4) Increased greenhouse gases increase the warming of the planet (and lead to increasing Ocean acidification)
5) Such impacts would be expected to increase average temperature (observed), lead to more warmer nights (observed) more days with average temperatures and average highs well in excess of records (observed) increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather (observed) increasing ocean ph levels (observed) retreating global glacier mass (observed) and retreating arctic ice mass (observed) as well as increasing sea levels (observed)

All these observations should properly be assessed over decades rather than individual years and the trend is inexorably showing that AGW is real and a problem.

By your reasoning, everyone who's not agreeing with the latest "fact based" environmental scare, is a conspiracy theorist. You are assigning the role of people who are "not open minded" and who cannot be convinced, by default, to those that disagree with you. I must say you appear to be so involved in the dispute that it's hard to see how _you_ could be convinced of anything different.
"Experts" and scientific studies were also supposedly behind other big environmental scare, most notably the overpopulation/famine scare, and the infamous DDT ban.

Alessandro - I wish you would stop putting words in people's mouths.

Neither Stephan nor I called everyone who disagrees a conspiracy theorist.

I think Stephan was refering to the argument of Jack Adams (which certainly alleged some sort of conspiracy on the part of Hansen) as well as my efforts to refute Erik (who is a blatant conspiracy theorist about 9/11 as his facebook profile liked to here blatantly publicises). His point being that rational argument won't persuade them .

No doubt he is minful of Karl Popper's dictum "No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude".

I think that description is apt for Erik

It is also a matter of public record that many (but certainly not all) of those who argue against the reality of AGW consistently use some of conspiracy theory argument to butress their otherwise perhaps flimsy case.

The rest of your points are irrelevant. The issue of AGW rests on the evidence. Those who seek to refute it should focus on that.

Jack no matter what your bluster about politics and belief systems it still comes down to reliable evidence that has been indepedently validated. If you can't address that then your comments are just so much fluff.

Again I will repeat

Here are the facts

1) The Greenhouse effect is a real physical phenomenon well established
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has been on the increase
3) isotopic and other evidence shows that man put it there (in excess of the natural re-cycling ability) as a result of fossil fuel emissions
4) Increased greenhouse gases increase the warming of the planet (and lead to increasing Ocean acidification)
5) Such impacts would be expected to increase average temperature (observed), lead to more warmer nights (observed) more days with average temperatures and average highs well in excess of records (observed) increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather (observed) increasing ocean ph levels (observed) retreating global glacier mass (observed) and retreating arctic ice mass (observed) as well as increasing sea levels (observed)

All these observations should properly be assessed over decades rather than individual years and the trend is inexorably showing that AGW is real and a problem.

If you want to invalidate AGW then do so by refuting the above points. Otherwise your just another denialist blog poster

Why didn't you also mention that retreating Antarctic ice mass would be observed? Oh yeah, NOT observed, not net.

As for the rest of your points in (5) most would be a consequence of warming from natural causes too.

The term "greenhouse" is a misnomer since greenhouses warm through lack of convection and indeed convection is the main form of energy transport in the atmosphere.

While it is true CO2 has been increasing it is problematic whether it is sourced entirely or in the main from humans; see Knorr and Salby.

The so-called isotopic indicators of anthropogenic sourced CO2 are problematic; see Segalstad, Quirk, Salby.

Increased greenhouse gases may increase warming but this ignores saturated wavelengths and increasingly evident negative feedback and forcing from water in the form of clouds; see Spencer and Braswell. It is also the case that in the overlapping spectrums increased H2O and CO2 produce a reduced combined emissivity compared to either in isolation; see Harde, Petschauer, Nahle and Lapp.

All of the so-called temperature effects are in dispute, as are measures of 'ocean acidification', another misnomer.

Rancourt replies to Pierrehumbert:

http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/radiation-physics-constraints-on-global_12.html

Rancourt notes:

"This implies that the induced change in {te} is not simply (anti-)proportional to the considered change in CO2 concentration (change in Cco2) but instead is highly attenuated. Indeed, the decrease in {te} from an increase in Cco2 arises not from an increased absorption at resonance but instead from increased absorption on the outer edges of the absorption band, thereby increasing the wavenumber-width of the absorption region that corresponds to saturation absorption conditions (e.g., [11]: Fig.2)."

In addition saturation effects have been MEASURED:

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf

Harde notes:

"The line-by-line calculations for sun light from 0.1 – 8 m (short wavelength radiation) as well as those for the emitted earth radiation from 3 – 60 m (long wavelength radiation) show, that due to the strong overlap of the CO2 and CH4 spectra with the water vapour lines the influence of these gases is significantly reducing with increasing water vapour pressure, and that with increasing CO2-concentration well noticeable saturation effects are observed limiting substantially the impact of CO2 on the warm-up of the atmosphere."

Nothing like a bit of REAL evidence to debunk the debunkers.

How wearisome; I don't "champion" anyone Michael. Having practised law for many years I take a forensic approach to evidence. I was initially inclined towards AGW but on closer examination, following money trails, the disregard of cogent, contrary evidence, manipulation of records [see NIWA and here: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/audit/anao-request-audit-bom.pdf] and too many 'sharp' practices to mention I am convinced that AGW is rubbish.

One of the primary things which bugs me is the ad hom default mechanism for AGW advocates; thanks for once again demonstrating it. Your description of Rancourt's predicament and circumstances is inadequate; in respect of the personal law suit perhaps you can provide further details.

Forensic? But not openness about motivations? Don't "champion" ??

Care to comment on your failure to disclose that you were one of the prime authors of the challenge to the BOM temperature data in NZ about which you wrote such a scathing article on the Drum some months ago, as if you were an impartial observer, but conveniently neglected to disclose your personal involvement?

Also care to disclose that you are the scretary of the "Climate Skeptics" a POLITICAL party opposed to AGW

Anthony - I understand you don't accept AGW and doing your best to try and discredit it.

That is fair enough - as long as it's done via evidence and proper science.

But on these blogs you could at least be clear about your motivations and affiliations perhaps?

Uh? I linked to the Audit Application of the BoM temperature record which has my name listed on it; how much more would you like me to declare my scepticism, with a tattoo perhaps?

As for being the secretary of TCS, Michael was good enough to announce that on another thread.

You failed to disclose it in the article - that is a simple fact

Just as you have failed to disclose your political affiliations here on this thread

So, you want me to disclose what I am not or didn't do and what my political affiliations are as a prelude to my comments? Nice.

Which party do you vote for Mark? The Greens?

The issue is that you are an office holder in a political party with clear political motivations in relation to the science of AGW and it is something you have not disclosed either in your profile or in this thread.

Such disclosure is clearly relevant to the issue at hand as you should well know

I, on the other hand, am a member of no politcal party.

What party I may vote for is irrelevant. As is who you vote for (I didnt ask - I don't want to know - I already know you associate with such lumiaries of open and tolerant thinking as Cori Bernardi - that's enough for me).

Typical lawyers obfuscation to try and take the attention away from the issue at hand.

But for the record I have never voted for the Greens.

There is no issue at hand; your point is non-existent; it is like Michael impugning Spencer because he believes in ID; THAT is irrelevant to his climate science.

And while it is true that I was reluctantly persuaded to get involved in the politics of AGW it was only because I could see this was a political and ideological issue NOT a scientific one; AND I do not expect to have my research and opinions accepted or not accepted on that basis; I always argue the point as objectively as I can and in terms of the science as I see it.

It is the likes of you who persist in creating the issue that what I say about the science is qualified or subject to my politics.

I disagree. Transparency is always to be preferred. It is a clear value The Conversation expects of all its authors.

Given the nature of your posts and your very strong political affiliations with an organisation that has the refutation as a political agenda (note - not a purely scientific one) your behaviour is not transparent.

You showed by your actions on the Drum that you prefer to avoid it. Quite clearly your political motivations go the heart of your observations which can hardy be qualified as disinterested.

Anthony
Many of your points are simply misrepresentation
Misrepresentations by you include
1) Your point about how a greenhouse actually works is true but irrelevant. The greenhouse effect is real and exists - No one except the most loony deniers argues with that. So that's a complete furphy and irrelevant,
2) None of the temperature effects are in fact in dispute - (apart from your politically motivated challenge) When you can offer evidence that they are wrong do so but you will have to explain why your data sources are better than NASA or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - here's a link to just one plot http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/land
3) Your comments about ocean acidification are a joke. First, I didn't use that term. I referred to pH levels (by the way - I made a slip - they are in fact decreasing - surprised you didn't pick that up or don't you understand what you are reading?) The oceans are alkaline (meaning pH>7) - the point is they are getting less alkaline (i.e. more acidic) due to CO2 - that is an empirically measured fact.
Now for the science you so glibly quote (although I note you quote names not references)
CO2 has undoubtedly been increasing. Nice to see you acknowledge that point. Professor Salby is an eminent Climate Scientist and his contention, as yet unpublished, is that the increases are due to natural emissions not manmade. I will be very interested to see his paper when it comes out. In the meantime his conclusions are serious challenged here http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm
"The gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than the total emissions of CO2 from human sources, so by elementary deduction, the excess must be going into the oceans, forests and soils, the other components of the fast carbon cycle.
A tell-tale signature of human fossil fuel emissions is the large fraction of CO2 being driven into the oceans. According to Henry's Law, we would expect the oceans to absorb more CO2 as the air above it becomes increasingly saturated with CO2. In other words the CO2 must be coming from a source external to the fast carbon cycle. This is supported by measurements showing that CO2 is accumulating in the ocean, and is reflected in the declining oceanic pH, showing the ocean is actually gaining CO2 over the long-term, not losing it, as Salby seems to believe".
By way of interest - given that is indisputable that humankind HAS been emitting fairly copious quantities of CO2 - what does he think happens to it?
As for Knorr - his work suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected. But that is entirely consistent with the debunking of Salby's work above. So no surprise there - it's showing up in the ocean. However Knorr himself acknowledges that his data is uncertain enough to need exploring why. When asked if this meant AGW wasn't a problem he said “Not necessarily...Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.
In other words even if the natural carbon sinks are bigger than we thought it doesn't overturn the reality of AGW or suggest complacency
So this hardly amounts to an overturning of the science.
In any event his work is fairly comprehensively refuted here http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm
here http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2_problems.html
and here http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html and in papers like this one http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo689.html
I believe Michael has dealt comprehensively with your false claims on saturation.

My reference to the misnomer of the term Greenhouse is relevant because it goes to the tactics used by alarmists to rev up the fear aspect of AGW; this and the endless blanket, roof, trapping analogies used to give the Earth as a pressure-cooker image currency have been part and parcel of the AGW agitprop; also part of this promulgation is this:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/09/kids.html

What's your take on that image Mark?! Happy to be travelling with that since you think transparency is foremost. And incidentally I reject any aspersion about me not being upfront. Anyway let's look at your science.

1 You are disingenuous; the New Zealand temperature record is before the court; David Stockwell has a good summary of the current NZ situation and also in Australia:

http://landshape.org/enm/niwas-station-temperature-adjustments-ccg-audit/

2 Ocean acidification is, as you acknowledge, another misnomer because the oceans may become less alkaline not acidic as this good summary explains:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated

More generally if Salby is correct about CO2 increase being natural then AGW is dead; I am familiar with the view that if the increase in CO2 is LESS than Human CO2 [ACO2] then all the increase must be due to ACO2; this is a flawed logic and I say that with respect to Ferdinand Engelbeen, who proposed this and who is a sceptic; it can be shown to be flawed by comparing ACO2 and CO2 increase:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/comment-page-3/#comment-434102

Clearly, as Quirk's graph shows, CO2 can decrease when ACO2 is increasing and CO2 can increase more than the increase from ACO2.

If Lidzen and Choi 2011 are right then AGW is wrong; if Spencer and Braswell 2011 are right then AGW is wrong; if McKitrick et al 2010 and Fu et al 2011 are right AGW is wrong; if Koutsoyiannis 2011 is right AGW is wrong; if McShane and Wyner 2010 are right AGW is wrong; if Miskolczi 2010 is right AGW is wrong; if CERN etc etc.

And yet guys like you never have a moment's doubt.

You're a funny guy Michael; in fact your droll comments are the main reason I bother participating on this site. In regard to Nicol's excellent essay you would of course be referring to the typo about the distance of the Earth from the sun where Nicol says 1.5 million Klms and not 150 million; a really basic mistake! With grave ramifications for the rest of the essay. You really are an expert at innuendo and ad hom Michael. Still waiting for details of the lawsuit against Rancourt.

Denialists never tire of recycling old chestnuts do they?

This issue, which was an acknowledged error, is dealt with quite well here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm

The fact is that the IPCC report is enormous - and, guess what - being a human endeavour it contains some errors.

But these in no way invalidate the reality of AGW. (Just like your spelling mistake above it's Himalayan - they happen but are not always relevant to the overall conculsions).

Again - to invalidate AGW you have to refute the evidence,ENTIRELY - which despite numerous challenges you have conspicuously failed to do

Thanks Stephen - I didn't know that.

It's a good point although in a way the whole thing is a furphy. It's akin to saying that because 0.1% of what someone says is wrong the other 99.9% is wrong too even though that other 99.9% has been indepdently corroborated and validated again and again

No - no-one will mind at all. If what you say is true it's good news for the planet.

Perhpas you would care to cite the properly credentialed peer reviewed referecnes for this new research?

As I'm rather sceptical about skepticalscience, a RealClimate linked disinformation operation, I set out 2 years' ago to reverse-engineer the complete subject. I had worked in global warming issues for 20 years but had assumed the IPCC was doing its job.

It hasn't. The debate now is which of the wrong bits are happenstance, incompetence or fraud. That three essential bits of the science, needed to 'prove' the highly-amplified CO2-AGW hypothesis, are wrong is beyond doubt.

Back radiation is an elementary mistake Trenberth made because he wasn't taught proper physics [you can't us S-B on its own, you need emitter and absorber with Prevost exchange energy for Kirchhoff's law, in turn the 2nd law of thermodynamics].

Sagan's aerosol optical physics is wrong because it's based on the assumption of a single optical mechanism. Climate science has developed a mass hysteria in transposing Twomey's physics to thick clouds - he warned that you can't do it.

For thicker clouds with some larger droplets [drizzle] the r^6 law from Mie means a second effect takes over, the internal reflection that makes rainbows. So dark clouds are from direct backscattering and it's turned off by the 2nd AIE. That is the real GW which operates at the end of an ice age and explains some recent warming, natural effects the rest.

CO2-GW has been overestimated by nearly an order of magnitudes because the 1st AIE is imaginary and real GHG warming is c.10K, not 33K. It is also possible it could be sightly negative because of self-absorption with the saturated bands near the earth's surface. Will Happer is on the trail here, so is C R Anderson and these are serious physicists. People like Curry who are good, mainstream climate scientists are realising just how poor the basics are in the subject, But that's what you get when you have a new science and the people in charge aren't very good.

As for the likes of Cook, they aren't objective scientists.

I'm sure you're suprised by many things Michael but I dare say the unseemly haste in which Dessler's 'reply' to Spencer and Braswell was published gratifies you.

Why don't you do some research on Control Theory and see who stacks up best: Spencer or Dessler, or neither.

Alistair your various posts are full of technical details, some of which I hardly feel qualified on which to comment.
But I would make the following observations

First I see you've been quoting this sort of detail (almost verbatim), on more sites than I can count under one guise or another. And you've been doing so for more than a year now with the same technically ladencontent. I wonder why you can't simplify the points?
I'm also perplexed why you don't try and get it properly published?
When you do it might really be worth paying attention to (seriously)- in what journal do you claim the optical physics will be published?
But in the meantime it appears as just another bloggers rant.
I do find your ready dismissal of www.skepticalscience.com a little hard to take - they have won awards for their excellent presentation of the science and routinely reference their work to established science. What published work can you refer to support your claims?
Still, I'll try my best to grapple with what I can extract as the key points you make

1) I can't see how your paleo-climate data paper reference is relevant - even if we accept its conclusions it focuses on what the climate forcing and feedbacks were 17000 years ago. What matters is what's happening now. All good climate science acknowledges that in the past CO2 was a lagger (and it was "natural" CO2). The question is what is driving the temperature increases NOW/recently
2) Your comment "'Back radiation' is the mistaken belief that Prevost exchange energy can do thermodynamic work" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. whilst there have been some disputes about saturation (mostly refuted as Michael points out) no credible scientist seriously doubts the existence of back radiation, nor that it can lead to increases in surface air temperature (much like blanket keeps one warmer in bed)
There's a pretty good post about that here http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
But if I've misunderstood anything perhaps you could elucidate (only please keep it simple for me)
3) Your point about cloud albedo I must admit I find fascinating. I don't have the expertise to comment on exactly how droplet size and formation affects upper and lower atmosphere cloud albedo (other than to comment that it must be important). perhaps others on this thread may?
I'd like to do some more investigation on that because I can clearly see it's an important factor.
Can you point me to any validated data on both albedo measurements (solar facing and earth facing) and cloud cover?

I'm also not a climate scientist. Just a physicist.

But I would suggest the link to this story is perhaps relevant to where the scientific debate should focus

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=missing-global-heat-may-hide-in-dee

Plus the comments

"There is a kind of an interesting debate playing out between Trenberth's idea of missing heat predominantly sinking into the depth of the ocean and another idea that an increase in industrial aerosols is increasing the earth's albedo; therefore, there is no missing heat. Interesting, but neither idea predicts that warming will not continue."

When the albedo increases, more sunlight is reflected back into space, meaning the earth gets less heat from the sun so this has a cooling effect on global temperatures. Conversely, a drop in albedo warms the planet.
Of course this just focuses on incoming radiation at daytime. It ignores back radiation from clouds - obviously dominant at night and less so during the day (the cloudy night - warm night phenomena)
So there are really 3 effects
The clouds reflecting sunlight away from their top side, (more reflection, less heat reaches earth)
The (CO2 etc) greenhouse effect of absorbing and reradiating downward the thermal radiation of the Earth's surface,
The clouds reflecting back down the thermal radiation from Earth's surface (more reflection more heat reaches earth).

Rather than focus on albedo modelling I'd rather focus on what the data says. What I've been able to find is http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD010734.shtml and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/304/5675/1299.abstract (Palle et.al.)

These show a steady decrease in albedo from 1984 to 2000, with a strong climatologically significant drop after 1995. From 1998 to 2003, a complete reversal of the decline (in otherwords albedo went up) and flat since.

So, I think Alistair you are saying that the temp increase in the 80's/90's was due to decreasing albedo. That part actually makes sense to me so it is a worthy debate. BUT - if Albedo went up from 1998 to the mid 2000's we should have seen cooling and we didn't - 2010 was as hot as 1998, and the last decade was the hottest ever.

So what mechanism is keeping the temperature high or driving it higher even though the influence of albedo (not to mention reduced solar flux) should be going the other way?

Very good Michael; let's have some examples of my cluelessness to justify your conclusion that I am clueless.

Don't verbal me Michael; I introduced Rancourt's essay as an interesting contribution to the debate; Rancourt declares his model is meant to be the simplest possible using real data; in this respect he uses the same approach that Arthur Smith uses to prove the greenhouse temperature of 33K;

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

As for the company's modelling; would you care to concede some modelling issues with orthodox AGW models, or were they perfect to begin with and only got better?

And have any further insights on the Nicol paper on saturation?

Thank you Michael; you are priceless. I find it eerily charming that our 2 resident cosmologists spend their time staring into the vastness of space and yet cannot see what is under their noses.

Do you have a link to the Breasts, Buttocks and the Big Brains paper? Never mind I recall it was in the MSM recently. I shall be bookmarking that Journal from now on.