Why did you choose to start your plot with 3 exceptionally warm years? And why so short? What happens when you zoom out? Are you trying to hide something?

Extending to 14 years does not make much difference - still essentially flat.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2012/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2012/trend

hahahahahaha 14!

Sorry, I thought this was a joke, but it's possible that you're serious.

I'm not saying you're wrong or bad or whatever, it's just not how science is done. You have to select the data before you look at it, you can't look for patterns and then disregard the data you don't like. Carefully choosing the period with the biggest declining trend by looking at the data tells you nothing.

So, to do it properly:
1) choose a window (do you really have to?), justify your choice
2) choose a weighting for rolling average, justify your choice
3) THEN look at the plot and try to interpret/explain it, without hoping for a particular trend (up or down!)

This has been done by lots of talented people, who are all in agreement that the climate is warming dramatically, that's not in dispute by anyone. Proving the causal link to CO2 is much more difficult, but the evidence is all pointing in that direction and that's where the consensus thing comes into play.

Cameron However you adjust your start point over the last 14 years there has been essentially no warming. That is not really debatable. You are right in that if it is extended back to 1980 you can create a warming slope to 2012 if it suits your point of view.
You can also view it as warming to 1997 and not warming or cooling thereafter. It is not inaccurate to say that all the warming in the last 32 years has been pre -1998. My original comment was meant to say that a survey group would react to whatever you told them prior to the survey.
Will - Your haha comment demeans you.

Will
"You have to select the data before you look at it , you can't look for patterns and then disregard the patterns you don't like" . I just wish "climate scientists" would do just that. Michael Mann who created the infamous hockey stick has been credited with choosing a small number of tree rings that agreed with his theory and disregarded the rest.He also even cut off data from those when it didn't agree with his theory .Is this what you mean by how climate science is done ? Incidentally Mann is in new trouble for falsely claiming he is a Nobel Laureate in documents submitted in a defamation case.

Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

Observation 4. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorped in exposed ocean rather than reflected off ice.

Observation 5. Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting, increasing the rate of sea level rise. The rate of ice melt is accelerating as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase.

Observation 6. In the Arctic, tipping points have been crossed. Permafrost is thawing, releasing stored methane and carbon dioxide, and warming Siberian continental shelf is causing release of methane from submarine methane clathrates.

Inference 1, drawn from observations 1, 2 and 3. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth's temperature. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth's temperature.

Inference 2, (drawn from inference 1 and observations 4, 5 and 6). Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere, and transfers a lot of heat to both Arctic and Antarctic.

Root cause analysis 1. Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH.

Go figure.

Wow! Give me a break!
What part of "there has been no warming in the last 10 to 14 years" do you not understand? All of a sudden we now have Antarctica melting at minus 20 degrees C with record sea ice and you bring out tipping points. the ultimate flight of fancy to terrify people when the data does not agree with the theory . Pretty soon we will be able to farm Greenland if and when the original farms thaw out and Arctic ice will soon be at the level it was in 1873 when fleets of SUV's first caused the ice to melt.
.http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=ST18730328.2.20&cl=&srpos=0&e=-------10--1----0--&st=1
ARCTIC DISCOVERY.
(From the London Colonial News.) Once again news reaches us from the far North of that mysterious silent sea which lies round the Arctic pole, and into which no vessel has ever jet made her way. As far back as the days of Barentz, in 1596, open water was seen to I the eastward of the Northernmost capes of Nova Zembla. The Dutch fishermen above and around Spitzbergen have frequently pushed their way through the ice into large open spaces, Tarying in size and form with the season and the winds. Dr Scoresby, from observation of the manner in which, as the explorer approaches nearer and nearer to the Pole, the floe becomes capricious, and tends to melt away, was led to infer that there lies round the Pole a large expanse of clear, warm water, from which sets a continuous current towards the Equator. Baron Wrangel, when forty miles from the coast of Arctic Asia, sighted what he 1 described as " a vast ocean ;" and, still later, Captain Penny saw open water to the north of Wellington Sound. But it was by Mr Morton, who accompanied Kane in his so-called Grinnell expeditions, that this open sea — the existence of which had long been suspected — was first actually viewed under circumstances that left no longer any room for doubt. Off Cape Constitution, in latitude 82 deg. 27 min. N., Mr Morton, pressing his way due North, found that the land-ice and snow which had hitherto served as a pathway for his dogs began to crumble and melt, and that large pools of water began to appear. Still holding his course, he found himself, after a weary struggle over some miles of boulders, treading the beach of an unknown sea, which, like the familiar waters of the south, dashed in billows at his feet. Scaling a high cliff, he looked out from an eminence of 840 feet, which commanded an horizon of almost 40 miles, upon a vast expanse of ocean. Far below him the waves, free of ice, moved by a heavy ground swell, dashed in wreaths of white surf against a rockbound shore.
In 1957 a heat wave at the North Pole is reported which did not really happen because it was before the first satellite measurements.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=i3ZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2OQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1581,5524109&dq=heat+wave+north+pole&hl=en

Neil, you make the same very basic scientific mistakes that so many deniers make. I honestly don't believe you're trying to 'fudge' the data, or cherry pick dates to suit your argument, or any of the other accusations levelled at you. You and your compatriots simply don't understand that:
1) climate and weather are not the same thing,
2) 'trends' cannot be measured over isolated periods, and
3) data on one variable cannot be viewed in isolation from other variables.

If you understand the above, you understand that it doesn't matter if the temperature has decreased in the last 14 years. Not one bit. It doesn't contradict climate change models in the slightest. Because:
1) ground temperatures are not the same thing as global temperatures, or 'climatic conditions'
2) 14 years is an utterly insignificant period, and
3) your 'trend' is largely attributable to other variables (El Nino-La Nina cycle, for example)

Ellie - although you insult me by calling me a "denier" likening me to a holocaust denier I will not respond by calling you names. I understand that climate and weather are not the same thing . Climate seems to be what we get when temperatures are warming according to the models and weather is what we have when conditions are different to model predictions . Trends can be measured any way you think fit. You assume that temperatures have not plateaued and I think that they have. Even with the amount of hind-casting used models have predicted poorly the way global temperatures have changed. No model predicted the last ten years and model predictions have been falsified by the actual data.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/hadcrut-trends-flat-for-15-years/
In response to your "utterly insignificant period" comment you seem to be at odds with NOAA climate "experts"
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/climate-models-falsified-by-their-own-standards/

"Demeans you"? What are you, his dad?

Don't be so precious

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, people have been calling each other "Denier" since 1475. Get a grip.

"I wonder what the results would be if the survey was prefaced by the statement that "global temperatures had fallen over the last decade"

Get off the downside of the staircase Neil: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

Your cherry-pick (also known as the Texas sharpshooter) is just a dishonest trick of argument: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

Please refrain from doing it.

James FYI......the term climate denier was coined by Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe in 2007 in an offensive article likening climate skeptics to holocaust deniers. If climate denier was in common use before that please advise.

If you look up the data from the BOM Australian tidal station data of the air temperatures for the last 20 years ,the mean trend shows no increase in temperatures .The BOM will tell you it is too short a period to judge climate change and also the equipment is not up to the standard required by the BOM for assessing climate change. That is fair enough , but the climate commissions booklet ", THE CRITICAL DECADE" has the sea levels from the very same station data presented to the public to sell the governments carbon tax. If the scientists employed by the government had asked the BOM , they would have been told that you can not use the data because the time is too short a period to judge climate change. I know I can not judge the Australian data to prove that the climate is not being affected by the burning of fossil fuels , but nor should the scientists employed by the government.

What my example tells me that some scientists should review more widely and not be controlled by their employers. One scientist at the Bunbury meeting after showing him the BOM data for the 100 year rise graph of rainfall in the Murray -Darling region (he had said previously that climate change had reduced the rainfall data)---his answer was,"THINGS CHANGE".. ------Make me wonder if we should check before we take for granted every scientific paper.

As I said to Neil Gibson, you are using the Texas sharpshooter dishonest tick of argument, http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

Please refrain from doing it.

Chris your logical fallacy is that you believe climate scientists do not use your so-called texas sharpshooter nonsense.

Has anyone else noticed that Spiro, Dean, Chris and the rest of the skeptic brigade here never show up to argue whatever it is they are arguing on conversations which document the environmental changes caused by global warming, where they might have to run their nonsense past the physical scientist authors? -e.g. on the current Conversation Energy/Enviroment page, we have articles documenting ice mass loss in the Antarctic, the human signature of greenhouse gases over the last 2000 years, and Kevin Trenberth, no less, on the contribution of climate change to Hurricane Sandy. Deafening silence from Spiro et al.

Spiro doesn't dare show up and tell climate scientists that they are committing logical fallacies to their virtual faces on those articles. But when it comes to 2nd and 3rd order articles about public perceptions of global warming, or the political, health and social consequences - articles way down the inference chain from the fact of global warming - he is all over them like a rash with his intrade bets, trying to imply that global warming isn't happening at all, disputing the scientific findings in safe fora where he will never be noticed by the scientists. Likewise Dean with his jet fuel and Chris with his howling about consensus meaning things aren't scientific. Why don't you all go run your scepticism past the scientists whose work we are all in debt to? Tell them that intrade proves that antarctica isn't melting, and that JA1 jet fuel means there isn't an anthropogenic methane signature. Go on.

No just to you James since you are a hysterical nutter.

Why don't you man up and admit you know nothing about climate science, rather than being reduced to personal abuse?

"Spiro, Dean, Chris and the rest of the skeptic brigade " is personal abuse.

No need to get hysterical.

How about you admit you know nothing about science since you believe hysterical nonsense.

You agreed with Will Grant above that "skeptic" is not abuse. Most so-called skeptics I come across love to rattle on about their skepticism, it's being called a "denier" they tend to take offence at. Is it being categorised as being part of a group that you think is personal abuse? Comparable in offense level to calling someone, oh, I don't know, "hysterical nutter"? I could call you an Adullamite, if it would make you happier!

You need a cup of tea, a bex and a good lie down mate. And then you need to get off your high horse and learn some basic radiation physics and scientific history. Try Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming".
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Unless you're hiding a science PhD under your econometric bushel, I reckon I know more about science than you do, mate. But why don't you specify just what about climate science you consider to be "hysterical nonsense", and we'll take it from there?

It seems you cant handle the fact that there are people that disagree with you.

Dear Chris,
If the survey was made up of three groups, one random,one with climate change predictions and supporters ideas and the last group who had been instructed about the deficiencies , altered data, poor predictions, non scientific opinions from the IPCC reports and BOM data , the survey would have some value. If you claim that the information that I provided was of the" texas sharpshooter type", is that how you approach all scientific data from the BOM. If you think that , well does it also apply to the Climate Change details in the Critical decade document , that was edited by climate scientists. To carry your ideas further , it puts doubt on the case for having a carbon tax in Australia. Lastly , what right have you to say ----"Please refrain from doing it."---Are you one of the controllers of this site?

James, its apt that you should mention: Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming", because the discoveries are begining to unravell.

It seems that Briffa at CRU has 'discovered' that his tree ring data is in need of updating because of bias.

Seemingly, the history books were right all along on the subject of the MWP. Some 1,500 years global temperatures need improvement. Briffa now admits that pre and post MWP temperatures were higher than today.

And to add insult to injury, JPL now say their data on sea levels and its acceleration - are, y' know' umm not quite what they said it was. The same goes for ice masses. Its all down to satellite altimetry, which JPL say is based on 'spurious data'

references?

Spiro,

James said: "Unless you're hiding a science PhD under your econometric bushel, I reckon I know more about science than you do, mate."

I ceased responding to this bloke because I had enough of his constant demands that I justify claims I had not made, and his denial of claims that others quite clearly had made. I felt the discussion was descending into fantasy - his.

His unwillingness to question, or even admit to, the scientifically absurd appeal to consensus, argumentum ad populum, which is at the centre of this article didn't do much to help his credibility either.

However, in this case not only is he appealing to authority, but the authority he is appealing to is himself....

He actually thinks that because he claims to be one of those scientist thingies, so we have to take his word for what he has to say.... So much for the 'nullis in verba' which is at the centre of the scientific method. Or should be.

James, as someone who knows sooo much about science, you will know that appeal to authority is one of the really really big no no's of the scientific approach.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Oh, silly me - I forgot the referencs.

This is the yes to the MWP and no to Mann's hockey stick:
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract

Title
Potential bias in 'updating' tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

T M Melvin t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk
University of East Anglia, UK
H Grudd
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Keith R Briffa
University of East Anglia, UK

This is the sea level isn't really rising and the ice is not decreasing at the South Pole.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/poland-2012-p09-bar-sever-pr51.pdf

The article is about consus, no thermodynamics.

Actually, Chris, I gave you my answer to your argument about consensus above. Not my fault you didn't read it. It may be my fault that you couldn't answer my arguments. Speaking of "nullis in verbia", the Royal Society's motto, have you read their letter to Exxon Mobil yet?

Now, the matter at hand. I don't expect Spiro (or you) to take what I say at face value based on my credentials or claim to knowledge.

However, that is a different thing from disputing the _existence_ of my credentials or claim to knowledge. Spiro claims I know _nothing_ about science. I dispute this, and one piece of evidence I present is that I have a science degree, (presented by a properly accredited university, etc). If he has a science PhD, a higher qualification than mine, he might prima facie know more than me about science, but he hasn't given any indication of possessing such expertise. Similarly, I'm not about to claim that Spiro knows nothing about econometrics. This is not an argument from authority but an argument about whether someone possesses knowledge in a relevant domain.

If I was to say that you know nothing about engineering, I daresay you would object. I don't think that your objection, presumably based on your training, education, experience etc as an engineer, would constitute an appeal to authority. If you were to say "trust me, I'm an engineer, therefore the cubs will win the world series", _that_ would be a fallacious argument from authority. If you were to say "I'm an engineer and in my professional opinion, this bridge is unsafe" (assuming you're a civil engineer) that would also be an argument from authority, but not a fallacious one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Forms). It would be a statistical induction, based upon the likelihood that engineers do indeed know a lot about bridge safety. I might stand upon the bridge and argue that you needed to convince me of everything you know about stress and shear strain on concrete before I move an inch, or I could get off the bridge damn quick and find out the precise basis of your professional opinion later. Which do you think is the saner option?

Oddly, this has a strong parallel to my answer to your argument about consensus. I pointed out that this article is not an argument from consensus. It is a survey which shows that people are swayed by arguments from consensus among relevant experts (e.g. a group of engineers inspecting a bridge, or the group of published climate scientists). It is about the existence of a domain of knowledge, not an appeal to its existence.

If you don't like this, you could claim that people _shouldn't_ be swayed by arguments from consensus among relevant experts; or that attempting to do so is immoral or illogical; or that climate science is a bogus discipline and therefore consensus means nothing; but those are all different issues, which you haven't addressed.

This article is not an argument from consensus, and you saying it is doesn't make it so. Neither does Spiro's unfounded claim that I know nothing about science make that true, either.

I note that Spiro now seems to be making a genuine effort to engage with the physical scientists on this site in order to learn something about sea level rise and other facets of climate science. I politely suggest that you do the same.

Best wishes,

James

Melvin's paper doesn't refute Mann's work, it only reinforces and strengthens it.

Referencing Anthony Watts is like pointing at a cow and saying it is a goat. He has about as much scientific rigor and respect as an inch worm that crawled into a tequila bottle.

James, whether its your 200 years or the authors' 1,500 years, the consensus seems to be weakening.

I've heard that the 97% came from all but 2 of the 60 something surveyees who were not discarded from the survey results.

Tim, your reply was rather rude. Many of the university academics who participate here are quite civil. Perhaps you should get out more - or something.

James,

I am well aware that under the last couple of presidents the Royal Society has abandoned hundreds of years of precedence, of staying above the arguments, and turned itself into an advocacy group, not just on climate, but on other issues as well. Under these presidents it has abandoned the principles embodied in its motto, inevitably to its long term detriment.

Your references to the Royal Society taking a particular position are just further examples of your, yet again, appealing to authority rather than arguing from the data.

As to Big Oil and the Koch brs. financing climate scepticism? The Koch’s contribute about three million a year to sceptic organisations, and Exxon Mobil spend about one million. That is about four million a year….

Now, four million sounds a lot when compared to my personal bank balance, but when it comes to funding the arguments against climate alarmism, itself funded to the tune of hundreds of billions in one way or another, it is piffling, trivial, of little more value than the widows mite.

Why alarmists seem to be so scared of these pittances is beyond me.

And as a bye the way, I don’t see it being the role of the Royal Society to dictate to any person, or organisation, what opinions they may hold. In fact, such a position reverses the approach it has taken since its founding. That I agree with the Royal Society on some positions it has taken does not mean that I respect it for taking them. In fact, I am appalled that it has done so.

The Royal Society is now trading on its reputation, but in doing so it is destroying it.

"four million sounds a lot when compared to my personal bank balance, but when it comes to funding the arguments against climate alarmism, itself funded to the tune of hundreds of billions in one way or another, it is piffling"

False equivalence. Advocacy groups don't spend endless hours gathering data, analysing it, and publishing it in scientific journals, which is what their funding is spent on.

Please spare us the dishonest tricks of argument.

Chris,

You said: “False equivalence. Advocacy groups don't spend endless hours gathering data, analysing it, and publishing it in scientific journals, which is what their funding is spent on. Please spare us the dishonest tricks of argument."

Perfectly reasonable equivalence. Greenpeace, the advocacy group par excellence, has revenues of nearly a half a billion dollars a year, and all that money goes on what is essentially a marketing effort, and the internal activities to support that effort. Greenpeace is NOT an objective scientific research organisation, and makes no pretense of so being.

Let face it, Greenpeace future revenues depend on people being alarmed, so it spends its entire revenue manufacturing more. Exactly the behaviour a free marketeer would predict.

Hundreds of millions of dollars every year, spent on peddling just one product, alarm, and that is just one single organisation.

Koch + Exxon = 1% of just Greenpeace alone. Sorry, nothing dishonest or tricky about this argument.

Another denier attempting to define "real" science i.e. a science where right-wing bloggers with no scientific qualifications or publications overturn climate science.

Even on physics, Toby is wrong. From the CERN web site - a description of the scientific consensus around the Standard Model of particle physics.

"The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists over the past century have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the universe is found to be made from twelve basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces. Our best understanding of how these twelve particles and three of the forces are related to each other is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particles and forces. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained a host of experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena. Over time and through many experiments by many physicists, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory."

But a consensus does not mean that we know everything. Nor does it rule out future discoveries upsetting the current consensus.
"...it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description we have of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture."
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/science/standardmodel-en.html

The problem for deniers is that they want to reject the current scientific consensus around climate science but they cannot point to any alternative science other than the ramblings of conservative bloggers.

I'd like Toby James to defend his statement that "in real science, for example physics, 97% consensus doesn't happen" by finding 3% or more of living, published peer-review physicists who have written papers arguing any of the following:
1) general relativity is false; or 2) Maxwell's equations do not accurately predict the behaviour of electromagnetic waves; or 3) Schrodinger's equation does not accurately predict the behaviour of an electron orbiting a hydrogen atom.

Over 30,000 scientists in the U.S. alone have put their names to the statement that AGW is rubbish. http://www.petitionproject.org/

That seemingly throws into question the 97% claim of this article. What James would like is irrelevant

The 97% refers to scientists who have published papers on climate science or related disciplines.

It's not a matter of what I would like. You made some very strong claims about the beliefs and practices of physicists. As someone with a physics degree, I would like to know if there is no longer a consensus on general relativity, quantum mechanics, or electromagnetism.

The "petition project" of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (said institute, by the way, never existed before this petition, which is now over 10 years old, nor has it done anything else) was open to any American who (claimed to) have a B.Sc. or above since 1970. In that period, some 10 million people were awarded Bachelor's of Science or higher degrees in America. Therefore, they got 0.3% of the relevant population to agree with their statement. It would therefore be fair to say that 99.7% of the population of US people with a science degree, do not disagree with the proposition that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing harmful change to the climate.

"published papers on climate science or related disciplines" such as "Nature Climate Change", the prestigious journal publishing climate hysteria since 2007 and quoted in this article. What about mainstream science journals? If you believe in the predictions you should buy some futures contracts. Not even a socialist can say no to free money.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=715165

"Nature Climate Change" is just the section of "Nature", possibly the most prestigious and mainstream journal in existence, which deals with climate change science. Just like "Nature Chemistry" does with chemistry, and "Nature Economics" would with Economics, if it were to exist. What's your point?

On your rather repetitive offerings of intrade odds (you aren't Gerard Dean, using a search and replace to substitute "Intrade" for "JA1 Jet Fuel", by any chance?)

1) I have ethical objections to gambling, even on "sure things".

2) Even if I didn't object to gambling, or if futures markets don't constitute gambling, I don't have a large supply of disposable income to play with such things at the moment, nor do I have the time or inclination to work out how intrade works, never having used it before. If I had money to use on climate related things, it would do more good donated to the Climate Scientist Legal Defence Fund or purchasing carbon offsets.

3) You persist in pointing to short-term odds, which are largely meaningless, as the weather is noisy. It takes in excess of 20 years for a climate trend signal to unambigiously emerge from the noise, which is why that "no statistically significant warming" got started by people who should know better. I've got better things to do with my capital than tie it up for 20 years.

55% chance of 0.1 degree warming over 10 years. Not a short term, but if it is not realised, can you really say there has been warming? Futures contracts are not gambling instruments, but are used as hedges of insurance against adverse outcomes. In the UK there is a market for pubs to purchase contracts that pay out if it rains, since revenue falls on rainy days. The probabilities are derived from the market for these instruments as those that sell may bear a cost if the event does not occur, and thus a payout will cover their losses, and those that buy will bear a cost if the event does occur, and thus a payout will cover their losses. Of course, it should be clear that those that do have a stake in the AGW hypothesis or any global warming hypothesis would actually benefit if the event does occur, hence certain warming would be a win-win for these individuals if they purchased futures. You would be behaving optimally and rationally if in fact you considered GW to be a probabilistic event (as all future predictions and forecasts are) and sell contracts since you would want to insure against the loss of your stake which is dependent on the GW hypothesis being true.

As I said, the anthropogenic warming trend requires significantly more than 10 years to unambiguously emerge from the noise. El Nino cycles and solar cycles are both much longer than 10 years.

55% is "more likely than not", which I would agree with over such a short time period, but it could still be thrown by a La Nina towards the end of the period. There is a discussion of the time periods necessary for statistically significant warming to be demonstrated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Funding_for_partisans so you know I am not just making this up to back out of a 10 year commitment.

Why do you think that warming would be a "win-win" for me (or anyone)? Global warming is what we are trying to avoid!

My "stake" is in the form of wanting a better future for my children, in which increased levels of famine and natural disaster are not stalking the globe. I have difficulty placing a financial value on this, and indeed with the mindset that reduces such things solely to financial values.

I really couldn't make sense of what you were saying at the end of the article. Less run-on sentences would help.

“They will say science doesn’t work by vote, it’s about facts.”

Exactly. Which is what you say. But it completely misses the point. In every field of science there is a huge body of core knowledge which is no longer contentious and which has found its way into high school and university science text books precisely because there is general agreement in the scientific community that it is correct within the limitations of current understanding.

Paleontologists do not redevelop the theory of evolution every time they do a field trip, engineers do not redevelop the laws of motion every time they launch a missile.

You are claiming that this "consensus" knowledge does not exist! That is clearly nonsense.

The scientific method and peer review is the method by which this consensus is established - (the 'vote" claim is the infantile response from the anti-science cranks).

If you claim there is no consensus around climate science, give us the peer-reviewed journal articles that overturn it.

The problem you have is that despite all your hand waving about the science - your ideas come from right-wing blogs written by cranks. I am confident that the younger generation will stick with the tried and true scientific method.

You said: “You are claiming that this "consensus" knowledge does not exist!”

I have done no such thing. I am pointing out that arguing from consensus is contrary to the scientific method. There is no denial of any body of knowledge either implicit or explicit in that position.

You said: “The problem you have is that despite all your hand waving about the science - your ideas come from right-wing blogs written by cranks.”

Evidence? Would you care to name which blogs written by which cranks I have read? Do you know this because you were standing watching over my shoulder as I read them? Or is this some wild guess based on faith, not knowledge?

My understanding of the philosophy of science and use of logic comes from competent teachers and wide reading over the decades. Ever read Popper?

Please read what I wrote, and keep criticisms to that, not on what you would have liked me to have said, but didn't.

Fewer insults would be appreciated.

Ever read Popper? Yes and also Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

Your point is?

You keep repeating the strawman "arguing from consensus" because you are incapable of addressing the issue. There is no "argument from consensus" - rather a consensus exists based on the evidence.

You disagree. Show me the evidence. You keep hand waving but as yet you fail that simple test.

Will and I finally agree one one point. I have no problem with the term skeptic as skepticism and an inquiring mind are the mark of the true scientist.
"Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin." Huxley

Those speaking against climate change like to call themselves 'skeptics' because it makes them appear to have an open mind.

The reality is that these people are deniers. The reason they are deniers is that they have no interest in investigating the 'other side', and there is nothing which will change their mind.

In fact it is the climate scientists who are the true skeptics because they continue to do experiments, take measurements, etc, and if some compelling evidence came along that did put into question climate change then they would be the first to start saying so (and perhaps win a Nobel prize for saying so).

I've yet to see a denier change their mind as a result of the rebuttals from those who accept the science.

I agree with your point, but not the assertion in the article that the consensus is a "fact" or that it is a consensus belief of a fact. The best the IPCC can do is come up with a 90% degree of certainty. There is nothing factual about this. If there is a consensus, then the consensus is that there is a probability of climate change occurring or being "anthropogenic". A 90% degree of certainty means nothing with regards to forecasting since with this degree of certainty you can "fit" a host of data generating processes. See the following fact taught to undergrads in stats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe%27s_quartet

Note that this unedited resource also states that: "A procedure to generate similar data sets with identical statistics and dissimilar graphics has since been developed." The confusion of probabilistic and factual statements is disingenuous at best and can even be considered fraudulent, leading to criminal convictions:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1025/Revisiting-the-tragic-Italian-earthquake-manslaughter-verdict

So is Spiro advocating that we should do nothing to prevent climate change until the science can prove that it is 100% certain?

If so, is there anything else where major decisions are made only when we have absolute certainty? Most of us have the common sense to not get on an aircraft that has a 90% chance of crashing, but perhaps Spiro is different.

And if Spiro agrees that 90% degree of certainty is enough to ensure that significant action should be taken to prevent climate change, why is he bothering to argue in such a way that distracts from action.

My guess is that Spiro knows perfectly well that his reasoning is nonsense, but as with many deniers, posts to distract from the real issues and to give the impression that climate change is in doubt.

Mr Ham, go and learn what a 90% degree of confidence is and then we can talk about probabilities. As the link I have provided shows, the fact that the consensus is based may very well be illusory. The DGP offered by the IPCC is not factual and forecasts more than one or two periods into the future are unreliable. The probability of the AGW is best realised by a futures markets. This one tells us that there is only a 55% chance of warming occurring from 2005 to 2014, by 0.1 degree or more:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=715165

This one tells us that there is a 5% chance of 2012 being among the five warmest (very liquid):

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=706205

This one tells us that there is only 38% chance that 2019 will be 0.2 degrees warmer than 2009.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=707800

No need to huff and puff. It seems like the hysteria has peaked.

"The probability of the AGW is best realised by a futures markets."

So how well did the future markets do predicting the GFC?

"a neoliberal economist"?

Labels from the socialist fringe?

Cheerypicking to make stuff up - I can do this too - and like you I can't publish a paper but unlike you, I respect those that can.

Global Temperature Anomaly for Oct 2012 to be greater than 0.45 Degrees C (over 30year average)
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=757513
98.5%

Global Temperature Anomaly for Nov 2012 to be greater than 0.45 Degrees C
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=757514
90.1%

Global Temperature Anomaly for Dec 2012 to be greater than 0.45 Degrees C
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=757515
90.0%

with much higher volume trades/contracts than the ones you picked

I'm so jealous - if I was a denier I could make a mint at over 10 to 1 odds on consecutive months warming. But, for reality dwellers, the last time a month was colder or = to it's 30 year average was well over 300 months ago. What's the odds on if we're cooling/not warming?

Looking at the ones cherrypicked
1st Global Average Temperature for 2010-2014 to exceed that for 2005-2009 by 0.1 deg C or more 55% - I would alswo be wary on this - first bracket being mostly el Nino years .. and still

2nd Average Global Temperature for 2012 to be among five warmest years on record 5% - 2012 being a mostly la Nina year with all of 2011 la Nina
but hey, look at odds for 2013 and 2014, ~60% each but shhhh don't mention that, we're cherrypicking

3rd Global Average Temperature for 2019 to be 0.2 degrees celsius (or more) higher than for 2009
Contract bid is 80% $8 1 unit, contract sell is 48% $4.80 1 unit, last sale was 38%, $3.80 1 unit. 1 unit a few days before that, no volume for 6 months previously

And this is typical when one checks deniers references - it's never what they say and often the very opposite.

Is there some addon browser software that I can add a blacklist together and hide their comments. There's always the same 5 deniers that infect TheConversation comments and the comments section would be very useful if I didn't have to wade through the spam.

OK, no worries Dave. Above I was told that I should not look at short term movements in temperature, but I will not worry you about that.

Remember though, that being greater than some threshold anomaly does not necessarily mean that the earth is warming, but I shall not worry you too much about that one.

In any market, the price is dependent on the buy-sell spread which typically means that participants usually respond to offers. No offers means no certainty, which is precisely my point.

Let me illustrate. If you want a liquid market then see "Average Global Temperature for 2012 to be the warmest on record":

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743901

Particularly the graph:

https://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?contractId=743901&tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com

The market price in an efficient market, one with sufficient liquidity or activity, should reflect all publicly available information. This includes current events and realizations and forecasts. Forecasts are much more reliable one or two periods into the future then many years ahead, as the IPCC attempt to proffer. The market price clearly displays this information between Jan 2011 and Dec 2011, since what commentators call the "science" has told us there is a high likelihood of this occurring, resulting in a probability of 40% to 50% of the event being realised. The market prices crash after the realisations that the loose forecasts that make up this "science" has been proven wrong.

But, hey Dave, there are still a couple of months left, go your hardest.

The fact that all you can do is indulge in some disingenuous word-parsing indicates the paucity of your argument.

I have "faith in science" as opposed to inspecting chicken's entrails, reading climate denier blogs or other such woo precisely because science is based on evidence. The scientific method is an effective way of weeding out nonsense - which is why deniers have great difficulty in pointing to any peer-reviewed science to support their anti-science views.

"The fact that all you can do is indulge in some disingenuous word-parsing indicates the paucity of your argument."

Would you like to demonstrate where I am mistaken using argument rather than insult?

The use of 'consensus' is two logical fallacies, both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority. Not only does neither have a role in science, but their use is contrary to the scientific method.

The appeal to consensus, in itself, demonstrates an inability to argue the facts, and I repeat, in science if you cannot argue the facts then you have no argument to put. As anyone familiar with the scientific method knows. That is how science advances.

Arguing from consensus shows not support for science, but either or both of ignorance of science or contempt for it - usually ignorance.

As for your faith in science, good for you. I have no such faith. I have respect for the ability of those who utilise the scientific method to wrinkle out the truth, but I have no interest in any assertions based on faith, in any topic.

More word parsing.

Sunanda's use of the term "faith in science" was an expression of support for the scientific method. As was mine.

You set up a straw man to knock it down because you lack any better argument.

There is no appeal to consensus - there is a statement of a fact - that a consensus exists. You disagree - prove it.

There is overwhelming agreement among the world's scientific community based are multiple lines of evidence that the science of AGW is correct. And that consensus exists because of the thousands of peer reviewed journal articles backed by evidence that climate change is happening and it is caused by burning of fossil fuels.

You disagree. Show me the science. Show me the peer reviewed science. Stop the hand waving.

Where did he tell you not to burn fossil fuel in the pursuit of your business?

Mr McNamara

The statement itself predicates the outcome that Professor Lewandowsky and the 97% of scientists want; they want the governments of the world to stop climate change by stopping the burning of fossil fuels.

The only problem is that almost all of the scientists and climate change 'enthusiasts' such as your Lewandowsky's, your Steffan's, your Flannery's, your Karoly's, your Gergis', your Hansen's, your Gore's choose, and I stress, CHOOSE to burn JetA1 fuel to go about their business of telling me NOT to burn JetA1 fuel.

Putting it more simply:

If you CHOOSE to believe in climate change and the need to stop burning fossil fuels, then you CHOOSE to fly to Europe for a holiday or academic conference and in doing so, burn fossil based JetA1 fuel, then you have CHOSEN to be a card carrying hypocrite.

What is your choice, Mr McNamara?

Gerard Dean

If The Conversation bought a parrot, and trained it to say "JA1 Jet Fuel! Hypocrite!", it would be more constructive than Gerard Dean, because it would be more succinct. We could then train it to answer itself by saying "Offsets!" which is more learning than Gerard appears capable of.

Hey Gerard. I want my business to make a profit. In order to make a profit, I took out a loan from the bank to buy equipment. That means that this year, even though I said I want to make a profit, I actually made a LOSS, because I went in hock to the bank. Am I a rolled-gold, card carrying hypocrite?

Mr Haughton,

You asked, 'Am I a rolled-gold, card carrying hypocrite." The answer is entirely up to you Sir.

If you passionately believe that the worlds governments should act to cut and eventually stop us burning fossil fuels to reduce climate change, and then you CHOOSE to burn fossil based JetA1 fuel to fly to Europe or Asia or America for a holiday, you have answered your own question.

So, are you going to commit to staying in Australia until viable, renewable jet fuels are available toward the end of the 21st century and in so doing, save the planet from global warming?

That's why I'm a 'Denier'. Although I am heartily sick of flying overseas, at least I don't have to juggle the ethical dilemma that pious climate change enthusiasts must obviously face when fossil fuel pushes them back into the A380 seat on their next overseas holiday.

But the real baddies, the guys in the black hats, the white middle aged business managers or the commies in this story are the '97% scientists group' who know how burning JetA1 fuel is destroying the climate - but then they CHOOSE to fly as well.

Now, they don't have an ethical dilemma, that is an ethical sledgehammer.

Gerard Dean

Abstract of Curry's paper reads...
"This essay explores the history and consequences of the scientific consensus building activities by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the topic of dangerous anthropogenic climate change. A broad view of consensus is provided in the context of the philosophy of science and the social and psychological issues that contribute to bias. The role of scientific consensus in policy making is discussed. An overview is provided of critiques of the IPCC consensus process. A summary of recommendations is provided aimed at improving the interface between climate science and policy in ways that can support decision making associated with the growing implications of the “messy wickedness” of the climate change problem. "

The bias of The Con's editors clearly evident in their coverage of all things climate.

Curry's paper fails the BS sniff test right off the bat. First of all it hasn't been published yet, which means that Curry's article isn't comparable to Stephen's papers, which have either been published online or have been accepted and are in advanced press.

Secondly, Curry is essentially using circular reasoning, by stating that the IPCC were building a consensus and that they then built a consensus. The IPCC were a review panel, they reviewed the scientific literature. They didn't form a consensus, they reviewed the literature, the consensus came from the weight of evidence from multiple lines of enquiry. So her essay just completely fails.

James,

The use of this term is a smear tactic. It has no academic value, but, like gratuitous use of terms like Heartland Institute, Koch bothers, big oil, deniers et al, it is designed as an emotive attack utilised for political purpose.

That Lewandowsky uses terms of this type constantly is evidence of his lack of objectivity in his work.

There seem to be people who, so long as they pepper their speech with the word 'science', feel no obligation to actually adhere to the practices the word implies.

James - You should not be surprised. Lewandowski last effort was to try to link climate "deniers" to moon landing conspiracists and the results from that survey were pronounced "worthless" on the site of Lucia Liljegren whose mathematical analyses are respected on both sides of the global warming debate.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tweet-your-permission-for-lewandowsky-to-out-you/

Do you deny that the Heartland Institute, the Koch brothers, and "big oil" have funded many different attempts to dispute and confuse the science of global warming? It's pretty well documented.

"Do you deny that the Heartland Institute, the Koch brothers, and "big oil" have funded many different attempts to dispute and confuse the science of global warming?

Do I deny they dispute ‘the science’? If by that you mean do they help examine the claims of the IPCC? Sure they have contributed a little? Good for them, open debate is something any scientist should welcome. Do I deny they ‘confuse the science’? Absolutely. Yes. I do deny precisely that. Without any question whatsoever.

Stimulating debate in a contentious area of science equates to ‘confusing the science’ only if the speaker is more concerned with propaganda points than determining truth.

As to their contribution, the Heartland budget last year was about six million dollars, in total, to be used across all their activities – including defending themselves against identity thieves and fraudulent documents, not just climate change debate. This sum of money is trivial to the point it can rationally be disregarded.

I am afraid that the major contribution of Heartland, Koch brs. and big oil to the discussion, is to be used as bogeyman by political propagandists than anything their tiny financial influence may achieve.

They are more valuable to the propagandists as scare objects than they are to those who seek to widen the discussion.

For there to be "stimulating scientific debate", as opposed to propogandistic attempts to blur and confuse the issue, certain ground rules are required. These include, for example, accepting a broader framework of established facts, such as the conservation of energy, the laws of thermodynamics, and the chemical behaviour of CO2 atoms, and a certain level of civilised behaviour. As a rule, they don't include invoking the Unabomber, comparing one's debate opponent to Jerry Sandusky, claiming that the other side works for a one-world-government-communist-nazi-conspiracy, or other such smears. All of this has been done by people funded by Koch, the oil companies, and Heartland or other "think tanks". People who definitely have strong vested interests in preventing any action which might slow or stop the consumption of fossil fuels which leads to anthropogenic climate change.

Furthermore, if one side of the debate is able to present empirical evidence that something the other side has said is not true, and the other side is not able to show that there is stronger evidence the other way or that the evidence has been misinterpreted, then the other side should concede the point. Deniers, however, never seem to admit anything. I still come across people arguing that satellites show no warming even though Spencer and Christy admitted that this was due to instrumental error. Or that there has been no warming since the peak of the most recent El Nino, as if that means anything. Or that global warming somehow breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Or that Lord Monckton's very special and personal interpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation somehow renders everything the IPCC has written null and void. Or that Michael Mann's 1998 paper somehow "erased the medieval warm period" when its reconstruction started in 1400, after the medieval warm period ended. Or that global warming is a nihilistic new religion which threatens christianity. Et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.

When Heartland et al stop supporting clowns, I'll agree that they aren't a circus looking to scam the punters.

PS do you really believe that the financial resources of Big Oil and the Koch Brothers are "tiny"? Could you loan me a tiny billion or two?

As I said, their greatest utility in the debate is to be used as bogeymen.

You said: "do you really believe that the financial resources of Big Oil and the Koch Brothers are "tiny"?"

No, nor did I say or imply that they were. However, in terms of this discussion their financial contribution is tiny. Peanuts. So small that it is nigh irrelevant. If either, or both, were to disappear tomorrow no one would notice.

Besides, it is not as if 'big oil' are arguing against AGW, there is loadsa money in government subsidies provided they toe the line. Claims that the oil industry help finance dissenting voices is so far from reality that the claim is a joke.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm

I give this guy at least 40 points on the Crank index.

The only trouble is, James, you quoted the SkS comments on a Postma paper published 16 months before the current one which I linked. I suspect you have not read it, nor my own peer-reviewed paper* cited therein, nor Prof Claes Johnson's "Computational Blackbody Radiation."

Whilst several posts on the new paper have appeared on SkS, they have been promptly deleted, apparently for no other reason than that they have no valid scientific response. Nor have you, James, to such things as Sections 1 to 5 in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" or the page or so I wrote in Postma's paper - quoted pp 47-8 and commented upon on p.49. Maths and Science may change my views, but words will never sway me.

* http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
 

Wow, just wow. If I was small minded I'd dismiss the paper completely just based upon where and who published it (John Sullivan has the integrity and scientific nouse of the cast of Jersey Shore).

But I did actually read through the paper and was just astounded at the errors that are made at every step. My favourite is the chapter titled "The Sun Heats the Earth?" Really? It's great that they want to throw out the concept of the greenhouse effect, but you kinda have to explain how the planet doesn't freeze at night, how we have climate, how we have weather, etc, etc, etc.

I expect that, in line with our community standards, all posts from "Climate Change Fraud" will be removed because "fraud" is an insult to the integrity of climate scientists.

To all: 

I write with a background in Physics dating since about 1960. The reason that backradiation does not cause the so-called greenhouse effect is based on now-proven physics that radiation from a cooler source resonates and gets immediately re-radiated when it strikes a warmer target. It does not and cannot transfer heat to that target. All it can and does do is slow the radiative component of that target's rate of cooling.

But far more energy transfers from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere by sensible heat transfer - conduction (or diffusion) and evaporative cooling being the main processes. Although one can measure a lot of radiation coming from the surface, much of that is not transferring heat because it is the re-emitted backradiation which, energy-wise, is very similar to diffuse reflection.

Now, what physics tells us is that the non-radiative cooling will accelerate and compensate for any slowing in the rate of radiative cooling. Furthermore, the effect on radiative cooling rates is a function of the number and intensity of the various spectral lines in the incident radiation. Consequently, each water molecule has a far greater influence on this rate of radiative cooling than does each carbon dioxide molecule - and there are far more water molecules. So, yes, it stays warmer when there is low cloud cover, but this observation cannot be extended quantitatively to carbon dioxide.

It is totally pointless trying to use models to determine energy balance. The errors are too great for a start to determine if the net imbalance is, say plus 0.5% or minus 0.5%. But this all misses the point that energy balance does not determine climate. Rather, climate determines energy balance. Climate itself is determined by long-term natural cycles (eg 60 and 1000 years) and it has been the 60 year cycle which caused all the panic when it was on the upward swing until about 1998. Now of course it is heading downwards, but the long term 1000 year cycle may still have 100 years before 500 years of cooling sets in. We don't yet understand the exact mechanism whereby planetary orbits affect climate, but there is sound statistical evidence of correlation.

So, at best the assumed link between climate and carbon dioxide is the biggest hoax the world has ever seen, or perhaps it borders on being fraud in order to obtain ongoing research grants. You decide on that. Michael Mann could be in trouble with the courts - wait and see. But when it comes to physics, you would do well to ask why so many scientists each month are now joining PSI which clearly seeks the truth and publishes same.

Doug Cotton
Sydney
(Author published on PSI)