Less than qualified punditry

Frank P

The game is up Melanie. You have been a lone voice among your Spectator colleagues(?). The vindication must be sweet indeed. Enjoy!

d1carter

Yes, there is consensus among the true believers...who are the deniers now?

Richard

Yes, the scientists Melanie lists do deserve respect. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Is Melanie now going to stop using insulting words like 'scam' to denigrate the work of equally distinguished scientists on the other side of the argument?

RobinCalgary

Thanl you for being brave. I know I don't know with the certainty of the zealots, but I would like to weigh valid opinions.

HarleyDavidson

A word on our nasty 'friend" carbon dioxide (CO2) most readers may not understand. Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

Perhaps NOW you all have some information to arm yourselves with for future arguments with the global warming liberal arts crowd and other assorted bedfellows.

Nick

I suggest you read the editorial in this week's issue of Nature (3 Dec). It provides a satisfying counter-punch to the denialists wacky conspiracy theories.

baron

H-D @ 6.16:

What kept you when Jim blinded us with algorisms and Popper on Rod’s blog? Stay on line, the country needs you, and thanks, I’ve stored your short but illuminating piece of real science, and will use it, if don’t mind.

Frank P

Equally consistent, persistent and entertaining on this issue is Mark Steyn, who rounds up his pieces of the last few days and encapsulates the essence in his Macleans column today, laying it on world Leaders complicit in the scam, with a wonderful pictorial caption to head the article:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/03/the-science-of-global-warming/

Extract:

"The science is so settled it’s now perfectly routine for leaders of the developed world to go around sounding like apocalyptic madmen of the kind that used to wander the streets wearing sandwich boards and handing out homemade pamphlets. Governments that are incapable of — to pluck at random —enforcing their southern border, reducing waiting times for routine operations to below two years, or doing something about the nightly ritual of car-torching “youths,” are nevertheless taken seriously when they claim to be able to change the very heavens — if only they can tax and regulate us enough. As they will if they reach “consensus” at Copenhagen. And most probably even if they don’t."

Read it all; it's vintage Steyn an lifts the heart.

TomTom

When Rupert charges for Times editorials noone will have to read them and it can peddle its bizarre ideological fixations to a small subscriber group

John.

Nick: Isuggest you read Harley Davidson's comment - above yours in these columns.

Watt Tyler

Thank God for Melanie Philips, thats what I say.

You might have read this over at WUWT:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/gore-cancels-on-copenhagen-lecture-leaves-ticketholders-in-a-lurch/#more-13657

I also hear that elsewhere on the Spectator pages, Fraser Nelson is still spinning the Tory Party Line, but the page won't open up in my browser. I don't really want to break my boycott and buy a copy. ;)

HarleyDavidson

Use whatever you wish, Mr. Baron. Perhaps a short history of earth's CO2 history might also assist you.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), (two hundred million years ago) average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot.

Richard

It's the 'liberal arts crowd' as well now, is it? That means the kind of art that is worthy of the attention of a free intelligence. Presumably HarleyDavidson prefers the illiberal arts.

Kevin W. Parker

Hardly any of the alleged scientists on the list are climatologists, and a lot of them are just weather reporters:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/ranking_members_senate_minority_report_on_global_warming_not_credible_says_/

oldandrew

"A formidable array of no fewer than 700+ international scientists, a number of them current or former participants in the IPCC, have registered their scepticism of the theory with the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works."

Isn't this the Inhofe list?

Hasn't it been largely discredited for mainly consisting of names of people who either aren't climate scientists or aren't actually sceptics?

Moreover, people didn't register for this list, and many people who were on it objected to be included.

Nick

HarleyDavidson is being rather naive (or perhaps disingenuous) when he discusses the IR spectrum of CO2. It does indeed have three major absorption peaks that fall within the blackbody emittance spectrum of the Earth. However, the spectral bandwidth of the 15 micrometer peak is 10 micrometers, 10 times that of the 2.7- and 4.3 micrometer peaks. It is also notable that the mean blackbody IR emittance of the Earth is around 10 micrometers, well within the 15 micrometer absorption peak of the CO2 IR spectrum.

oldandrew

Just started researching your "sceptic" scientists.

First thing I found on Christopher Landsea was his wikipedia entry where he is quoted as saying:

"we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."

I think some of the others may be genuine sceptics, but it's pretty embarrassing that you couldn't put together a list of 7, let alone 700, genuine sceptics.

david elder, b.sc.hons in science

Most scientists agree that some greenhouse warming is to be expected. But there is considerable difference of opinion as to how serious the problem will be. I have seen two empirical surveys of the opinions of climate scientists. Both showed about 10-20% strongly pro the anthropogenic greenhouse theory, about 10-20% strongly against it, and the majority spread out across the entire spectrum between. Which means the media should be giving serious attention to both sides of the question.

Captain Canuck

Don;t forget Dr. Timothy Ball from Canada.

HarleyDavidson

Nick,
It's somewhat difficult to quickly respond from North American on a real time basis. Perhaps you're struggling with the science or perhaps reading from the internet and not factual.

CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air.
Only one in every 2632 molecules is a an actual CO2 molecule.

BTW, Nick, what temperatures should each and every part of the world be?

Or perhaps you might want to question why the most diverse part of our planet in both plant and animal life is around the equator -- the warmest area of the globe.

Something to think about.

Frank P

The two main political TV talking shops - QT and TW - and neither discuss the ClimateGate issue? I cannot believe that no-one from the audience on QT submitted a question about it. So who decides which questions are asked?

And is it not very strange that the publisher of this magazine fails to itemise the issue on his weekly political pantomime, when it is featured this week on the cover page of his magazine?

Curiouser and Curiouser.

John.

Nick: Re your last comment - so what? Do you really imagine that it makes the slightest difference with the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere being only 0.038% of it? Haven't you considered that global warming, were it to occur, (which it hasn't),would be much more likely due to changes in the cosmic/magnetic radiation ratio or even a shallower sea in an ice age releasing huge amoouns of methane?

Watt Tyler

The point is, oh ye climategate deniers, is that the science was meant to settled.

The whole opposition to AGW hasn't really been to deny it, but to demand to be shown that it is true. The recent leak at the CRU suggests to those of real open and inquiring minds that it isn't. Proponents of AGW who then continue to use discredited science begin to look like ideologues.

Of even greater concern is the refusal of politicians and news media, who never in the first place gave much credence or coverage to the contrary science, to continue in their certainty as if nothing has changed. It appears as nothing less than a dogged refusal to consider anything other than their ideology. This is the great worry of lots of normal people.

And I notice that the climategate deniers (sorry, I hate that term, but it will have to do) still use the tactics practised by Phil Jones et al - that is to belittle the opposition, pour scorn on their standing in science. It should tell us a lot about who is speaking to us. (and its not as if being a "scientist" at the moment is something to be proud of).

Major Plonquer

Harley Davidson proclaims that in the Late Ordovician Period: According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot.

What a load of scientific twaddle. The truth is that in the Late Ordovician Period the greenhouse hadn't even been invented yet.

steve

The editorial mentions "some notable exceptions" among the sceptics, some of whom Melanie then names. What'the problem?

Sergey

Nick, mean value of blackbody emittance spectrum is hardly relevant given its very wide distribution, while absorbtion spectra of CO2 consists of few very narrow bands. Wherever mean value of emittance spectrum is, these wavebands cover only tiny part of cummulative emitted energy. This is not so for water vapour and methane, and this is the reason to believe that these two substances, and not CO2, are the main contributors to greenhouse effect.

Sergey

There are many kinds of skeptics. Acceptance of AGW hypothesis (or, wider, nessesity to "do something" about it) depends on many different things, all of them are disputable. If you believe in some of them but reject the other, you still are skeptic. What is more important, in interdisciplinary studies critics usually concentrate only on one aspect which lies in the domain of their personal expertise and accept "consensus" position on everything else. That is why this "consensus" is an artifact of interdisplinarity. Most of the people supporting it can properly be experts only in small part of it. They can easily err in everything else. That is why we should count skeptics of every kind, and on every aspect of AGW count as suppoters only those who are experts in this particular aspect.

Richard

We could argue endlessly about the numbers of supporters and sceptics, and different ways of counting them. It truly would be endless, since those numbers are bound to fluctuate constantly.

What would be the point of doing that? Is it suggested that some special proportion of sceptics to supporters will point us one way or the other in terms of the action we should take. Is it a delaying tactic, a way of infinitely postponing the moment of deciding to take action? Whatever our interpretation of those opaque emails from East Anglia, it seems pretty clear that they were hacked and released at this precise moment in order to torpedo the chances of an emissions-cutting agreement at Copenhagen. They may well succeed in doing so, though it was looking very dicey already.

If they do succeed, and the proponents of catastrophic AGW, whatever their precise number, are right, it will be another missed chance to avoid catastrophe.

That's the situation. Broadly, there are three things that can happen.

We can take no heed of the scientific warnings and carry on with business as usual, finding licence for this in the various reasons for doubt. This seems the most likely result at the moment, which is why all this talk of a powerful green consensus is so absurd.

We could take drastic action, mobilising all our efforts to cut emissions and find alternative technologies (and, yes, Sergey, that could mean a major role for nuclear energy; the maligned James Lovelock agrees with you on that). The cost of this might be a slackening of economic growth, though many, including the CBI, are now emphasising the economic opportunities of low-carbon solutions. But, yes, there would be serious costs; air travel would have to be vastly reduced, at least temporarily. If the sceptics turned out to be right, these costs would have been incurred unnecessarily.

Or, we could attempt some sort of half-way, compromise option: a slower transition to low-carbon economies, with less immediate impact on both the warming and the current economic structure. We would be gambling then on the possibility that the warming, if it came about, would not be too severe for substantial mitigation and adaptation to be possible.

All three would be gambles.

Ian C

Kevin W. Parker
December 3rd, 2009 9:42pm
AND
oldandrew
December 3rd, 2009 9:51pm

You have both trotted out the standard alarmist response. Little needs saying about the glory of climate scientists at present.

The bigger point is that there are hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed articles, by scientists of one sort or another whose expertise is directly involved with climate science, if not actually climate scientists who are extremely dubious of the 'settled science'. They have not been acknowledged because of the corruption of the peer review system among the dedicated few climate scientists with a warmist dogmatic faith who are close to the UNIPCC. They have been effectively saying, "Trust us we know better than anyone else". This is poppycock science and now we know better thanks to the CRU whistleblower, who clearly knew where the bodies are buried.

If you were naturally sceptical, as we all should be when we are being told we need to change our lives so utterly, you would want to know the other side of the argument.

That's how most people work unless they have an agenda tied to the one being moved by the alarmists? What's yours?

Lift your gaze and go do your homework. It is all out there and I have acres of the 'other side of the story' in my 'Favourites’ box. So should you. You can then start slinging the sort of darts you have if you have the counter to what is out there. But it has not been aired or debated because the alarmists have held the reins so tightly by leaning on the authority of “thousands of scientists who helped write the UNIPCC reports".

Bollocks. There were (allegedly) 14 key climate scientists who controlled the whole thing and would not brook dissent from people like those listed above or in the 'list' submitted by Inhofe. Some of those named by Melanie are the leading people in their field, and there are many others whose scientific expertise inter-connects directly with climatology.

As I said, get into the search engines and you will find.

Frank P

Ian C

"Lift your gaze and go do your homework. It is all out there and I have acres of the 'other side of the story' in my 'Favourites’ box".

Yeah, 'sfull time job listing them, ennit?

Frank P

Ian C

Here's another yard to add to your acreage:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warmings_new_clothes.html

It's a wonderful little parable using the "Emperor's Clothes" fable, by Rosslyn Smith. Very apposite.

Some excellent commentary too.

Sergey

Find alternative? One needs not look for it, this technology already exists and proved workable, both technically and economically. France produces 85% of its electricity at nuclear plants. All objections against it are irrational, they are leftovers from 60-es pacifism.

John.

Richard: Global warming has not occurred in the last, say 30, years and is not occurring. It's actually getting slightly cooler. When there was 1200% - yes, 12 times as much - CO2 in the atmosphere there was an ICE AGE. CO2 levels ONLY increase AFTER a temperature rise so are NEVER a cuase of a temperature increase. Water vapour and methane DO lead to a rise in global temperature, but are not massively man-made. Even if the totally discredited CO2 theory were true, (which it clearly isn't) the insane and colossaly expensive measures to control global temperature would not be any kind of a cure: they would simply delay the inevitable by 5 years over a century, so would be a complete waste of time and money. The only people to benefit from maintaining that all this nonsense is true are the pro-AGW scientists, research grant recipients and tax-gatherers. Face the facts!

Richard

Sergey,

The objections to nuclear power are not entirely irrational. We do remember Chernobyl, after all. But, if climate change is an emergency, it seems likely that nuclear power may be the least-worst option, at least as an interim measure before renewables can be developed sufficiently. It doesn't look as if this is going to happen quickly enough for no interim measures to be necessary, I agree. Energy-saving should play an important part, too.

John,

In your overstatement here - 'the totally discredited CO2 theory' etc - you are doing exactly the thing you accuse the other side of doing: suppressing the argument. Quite clearly, there are very many experts who do not regard the theory as discredited. I would still say a consensus, but there is no need to argue about that, because it is undeniable that there are a lot of them. You dismiss their view without conceding a single point in its favour. This isn't a worthwhile way of arguing. If you object to the proponents of AGW doing it, in consistency you shouldn't attempt to do it yourself either.

HarleyDavidson

May I offer this from Canada's National News coverage on Climategate. Please take the time to watch this video.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/

Sergey

Richard, Chernobyl plant project was finished in 1958. Do you suppose nuclear reactor technology had seen no progress for a half a century? 4G reactors have safety estimates 1000 times better than Chernobyl-type reactors. French and Japan nuclear safety records are quite acceptable for rationally thinking people. Thorium fuel cycle makes the problem of nuclear waste 100 times less pressing due very small quantities of the waste per unit of energy produced.

Frank P

Harley D

Thanks for that link; another brick in the wall. And one more for Ian C's acreage.

John.

Richard: The reasons I give in my last e.mail are FACTS and are the very reasons for saying that the pro-AGW argument is totally discredited. If you propose to deny that these are facts then I give up!

John.

Richard: I don't concede a single point in the favour of the pro-AGW scientists and their supporters for the simple reason that there isn't one. At one time there was a consensus that the sun span around the Earth. It was totally wrong!

andrew adams

John @ 9.59

"Richard: The reasons I give in my last e.mail are FACTS and are the very reasons for saying that the pro-AGW argument is totally discredited. If you propose to deny that these are facts then I give up!"

John @ 6.26

"Global warming has not occurred in the last, say 30, years"

This is a fact? Or even a FACT? Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for this?

Richard

John,

Please don't give up. When a subject is as important as this, people with different viewpoints need to carry on debating.

Here is a recent BBC report that received a lot of attention, including some measured praise from the sceptic side:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

Met Office data is cited as evidence of a continuing warming trend. Professor Latif of the Leibnitz Institute is quoted as suggesting that a temporary cooling effect, due to natural cycles, and an underlying warming effect, due to CO2 emissions, are both taking place.

You may disagree, but this is a balanced report that acknowledges a range of expert opinions. In the light of this, it isn't unreasonable of me to say that there is a lot of expert opinion in support of the AGW theory. Putting the word 'facts' in capital letters isn't a way of making a proposition stronger; it's merely the blogging equivalent of shouting. A proposition is discredited when the preponderance of expert opinion no longer believes it. This quite obviously isn't the case with AGW, whatever the exact proportion of sceptics to supporters at any given moment. It really is curious, and disappointing, that sceptics should denounce the AGW proponents for suppressing the debate and declaring it over - and then attempt to do exactly the same thing themselves.

Sergey,

Yes, I believe you that nuclear power technology has improved greatly since Chernobyl, but I doubt that it has become invulnerable, and the potential consequences of a big accident are extremely grave, as you know. I'm sure that in 1958 and 1986 the nuclear industry was giving exactly the same sort of assurances. Nevertheless, as I've said, and Lovelock says too, if the risk from climate change seems greater, the nuclear option may become a necessity. One doesn't have to dismiss every fear as irrational to accept this. We are all too quick to call each other irrational.

Pete

Well Melanie,
There appears to be some well qualified "Flat-earther's there! (Gordon Brown calling us that today) as well as repeating the mantra "The science is settled"!!!!!!!!

Sergey

There is a amusing essay in "American Thinker" about all this mess:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warmings_new_clothes.html

In the Wilderness in America

If "flat earthers" want to use a little emotion to stir up the global warming crowd then so be it. It's getting tiresome this mantra of "the science is settled." The science, in fact, is not science but theory. And we all know how theory can become opinion, especially when politics muddies the waters.

Thanks, Melanie, for being a "flat earther" and poking the eyes of those who would shout that the science is settled. The theories have only begun, but the political leaders want to believe that the world is ending so that they can fund their pet "green" projects and push us back to the stone age.

The imminent Copenhagen accord is the equivalent of listening to that cavemen so long ago who said that fire would never work.

Augustus

This story about a 'brotherhood'
versus 'unpersons' rings a bell,
it really is Orwellian:
"Winston sat at his desk in the Ministry of Climate Science."

The real science crowd are the sceptics who have demanded accountability, and who have been telling the truth for years. The global warming scientists are the ones who have
sullied the respect and admiration for science, and now
all that they have left is their jumpy tribal doctine. The
stench of corruption and the enormity of the fraud is truly breathtaking.

C. Gee

Richard:

You say: "A proposition is discredited when the preponderance of expert opinion no longer believes it."

No. This is another version of "consensus must be right".
A proposition (theory, actually) is discredited when facts contradicting it are found, when there is a mistake in the reasoning, or a flaw in the original premises. Whether "experts" admit that their work has been discredited is another matter. They may cling to their discredited theories - especially if they believe a critical mass of such people is necessary to bring about political change.

There is no substitute for looking at the scientific statements themselves. Who is saying it, how many agree with it, in what forum it is said, in whose interest it is being said - none of this discredits a scientific statement. It must stand or fall on its merits which is why it is essential that it be exposed to critical views - which must be permitted, and answered. Not dismissed as beneath contempt and an irritating distraction. The internet is where a great deal of the scientific discussion is taking place because the journals are no longer neutral, and peer-review is corrupt.

If the fundamental data - temperature records - is discredited, the theorists of AGW had better rectify them or their theory falls - whether they acknowledge this or not.

Can political change be based on a discredited scientific theory? Sadly, yes. All too often.

Richard

C. Gee,

I was defining 'discredited' in both its literal sense (something is discredited if its general credit has gone) and the usual colloquial sense (something is discredited if general informed opinion no longer believes it). I don't think AGW can objectively be said to be discredited in either of these senses. See the BBC report I cite above.

But I am heartened by your statement that critical views 'must be permitted, and answered. Not dismissed as beneath contempt and an irritating distraction.' I entirely agree. Obviously, therefore, you disapprove of the use of contemptuous terms such as 'scam' and 'insane' to describe the work of supporters of the AGW theory.

phil

The posting between HD and Nick ,show how little the rest of us know and why we should "shut up" -the most sensible comment comes from David Elder , who may I assume advises that those that have scientific knowledge should do the debating and not those of us who know almost nothing of value on the matter. What uncle Tom Cobley has to say here is as irrelevant as all the others on the massive list of names put out to prove the point one way or another .It is consensus that we need and from those that have some knowledge of this subject .

.Too many people are spouting nonsense irresponsibly and bringing what most of the world, outside the confines of this column,believe is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists into disrepute .Jeering will not save this planet if indeed it needs saving,sound scientific collaboration is what is necessary and an absence of hysterical commentators .Just think carefully,you doubters, of what you are condemning your children and grandchildren to if you are wrong.

I am not passing judgement on this matter ,I am waiting for the best minds on this planet to advise us all and so should most of you .

C. Gee

phil:

Are you qualified to be referee in this debate?

I would say that anyone who confuses climatologists with the best minds on the planet, and who hands the matter over to them on our behalf and that of future generations is qualified only to join a cult.

Sergey, your contributions here have been appreciated.

Augustus

phil, dear fellow, the real political circus will be at Copenhagen. And you will see that the wackiest and indeed the most unknowledgeable demonstrators will be the 'green' crowd. There are, believe me, really zany organizations such as Climate action Justice who even plan to take over the centre for a day. Going back to your point about 'experts'. Do you believe Al Gore to be such an expert on the matter? Must we all work in government funded research labs in order to debate whether drastic CO2 reductions will make any difference to the world's climate? That is going down a very dangerous totalitarian road, And as Melanie points out, the crucial point is that many scientists believe that the
human activity theory is wrong.
The fact is, and it has now been proven, that there is no scientific method at work here. This is a hoax with no real evidence, no real temperature record that can be tied to the real world. No real evidence that CO2 will lead to catastrophic warming, and even no evidence that a couple of degrees warming is harmful.

C. Gee

Richard:

I understood perfectly well what you meant by "discredited".

Your invoking "general informed opinion" to establish that AGW is not discredited, says no more than AGW is not discredited because a lot of people credit it. And how are we to know what that opinion is "informed" by? How many have read the skeptic science?

Your statement "I don't think AGW can objectively be said to be discredited...," tries to turn a banal opinion polling result into an endorsement of the theory they believe in through the magic of "objectively".

We do not objectively know whether "informed" opinion believes or does not believe AGW, because we have no clue as to what being "informed" is.

Even the claims made that people have evaluated the data and studies is not objectively provable.

As for my disapproval of words like "scam" or "insane", I am not Miss Manners. When a scientist points out the manipulation of data, errors in mathematics, misapplication of statistics, faulty reasoning, they do so without saying "scam" or "insane" - but depending on the egregiousness of the error, and the nature of the defense (including the absence of one), perfidy and irrationality might be revealed without using those precise terms.(See the analyses of Briffa's magic tree, accessible online).

I suspect that AGW appeals to so many - including scientists - because it makes intuitive sense to them that industrial mankind is spoiling nature. That intuition is a trained cultural reflex and predates the age of science.

andrew adams

If the fundamental data - temperature records - is discredited, the theorists of AGW had better rectify them or their theory falls - whether they acknowledge this or not.

If the temperature records ever are discredited then I'msure they will. Until then...

Richard

C. Gee,

When you wrote that critical opinions should not be treated with contempt, I paid you the tribute of supposing you did not mean this to apply only to the opinions you agreed with. I'm not sure from your last whether this was too optimistic.

Here is another recent BBC report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm

It summarises the standard rebuttals to all the points announced by John as facts (or FACTS). Now, when it comes to evaluating these rebuttals against John's points, and your own, and Sergey's, I admit I feel out of my depth. Phil is quite right to rebuke us all for making so free with such complex material. But what has to be clear is that there is a large body of expert opinion - by all the conventional measures of what 'expert' means - that does not accept the anti-AGW case, and has answers to all the objections to it that have been made here. Why, therefore, should the AGW case not be treated with respect?

C. Gee

Richard:

Look to substance, not style, content, not form.

Historians may be interested in investigating which side has been more contemptuous of the other. And you can bet the farm there will be historians in favour of each side. But who really cares, and what rests on it?

Baron

Richard @ 1.10:

when you have a minute have a peep at this, please. Then we can talk.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

Sergey

Yes, the publication in American Thinker cited by Baron is the most honest, well sourced, documented and understandable to non-specialists summary of current Climategate controversy. It clearly shows an intentional deception of Mann and CRU team and its importance to AGW debate. This is must-read to everybody who wants to understand the scale of this hoax.

Stephen Fox

andrew adams: 'If the temperature records ever are discredited then I'msure they will. Until then...'
?
I don't get it. We have learned during the last two weeks what has been suspected for some years by many highly qualified observers. Namely that the ‘raw’ data was destroyed and all that remains is ‘value-added’ data, whose integrity is indeed in question. There are at least two major issues that even I can get hold of: that almost as soon as the tree-ring proxy meets up with the temperature record, it flunks, and has to be excluded (‘hide the decline’); and that a set of value adjustments was applied to 20th C temperatures which lowered values in the thirties, and raised values from 1950 (‘fudge factor’).
In any case, if the tree-ring proxy showed no Medieval Warm Period when the historical record is quite clear that Vikings farmed now icy Greenland until the mid C15th, and that wheat and vines were grown at latitudes which are currently too cold it appears that it must be treated circumspectly. Are those who refuse to admit these difficulties discrediting our cultural history? Do computer codes have precedence over widely accepted records of who went where and did what when? One of the ironies of that question is that many of those who do believe the codes to be right would be the first to be sceptical of what computers told them if they did not want to believe it (loud cries of Garbage in, Garbage out!)
If you are going to argue that there are lots of other temperature records, which are not implicated in this matter, well it is my understanding there are not. Nasa Giss is highly intertwined with the CRU figures, and the satellite records of course cover only recent history.

If all this doesn’t discredit the record, I am at a loss to know what would.

What makes the email revelations (as distinct from the statistical issues) so explosive is that the corruption of ethical and professional standards they reveal provides precisely the background necessary for such a corruption of the data. It really is an atrocious business.
I wish to be clear that I understand there to be general agreement that there has been warming during the last two hundred years, but that it is within the range of natural variation, that some portion of it may be put down to human activity but that in any case it is not at levels which justify the current panic.

phil

C. Gee
December 6th, 2009 8:24pm

phil:

"Are you qualified to be referee in this debate?"

NO absolutely not ,I hope it is apparent that I have had a modicum of education and that I am not normally irrational ,but none of that qualifies me to give opinions on a subject that I have only learned about in the media.This is too important a subject for us to treat so irresponsibly ,particularly as I suspect we are mostly of an age where it is only our progeny who will pay the price for our presumptuousness.

I have no wish to insult our regular and sincere posters but I ask you all to reflect on whether you are really qualified either ,to take such one sided positions .Mel has had her own position for a long time but we have never heard what she considers her qualifications are to influence so many people on such a scientific matter and particularly when it is such a minority view . I have never doubted her integrity or her intelligence but this is such a specialised subject I cannot see how she can know enough of the science to sway so many people , but I will be happy to hear from her that she has and that those that disagree with her are allowed to say so on her threads .

Snowman

Phil: click on the URL I posted above (Baron @ 12.00) and read it keeping in mind Sir Thomas Huxley’s definition of science: ‘Science is common sense at its best. Rigid accuracy in observance, and merciless to fallacy in logic.’

phil

Snowman
December 7th, 2009 3:48pm

If I was a scientist I would read it avidly ,but for me to read those who write about conspiracies against the world turns me away immediately -I would like to know what the purpose of one of these conspiracies is ?.Why are scientists plotting our downfall ?,and who makes the profit ? I am fed up of hearing Elvis is still here ,who flew the planes into the twin towers and all the other rot that we are hearing these days -I know I must be a fool but I trust the governments that we elect to at least try their best ,yes even our present one who have mucked up so many things ,but you will never get me to believe they are plotting our downfall .
I do not even know why I bother because it will probably not affect me ,and if the sea rises so high as to drown us, I will have bought a boat and a pack of baked beans which I will not share with the conspiracy theorists :)

phil

Snowman
December 7th, 2009 3:48pm

If I was a scientist I would read it avidly ,but for me to read those who write about conspiracies against the world turns me away immediately -I would like to know what the purpose of one of these conspiracies is ?.Why are scientists plotting our downfall ?,and who makes the profit ? I am fed up of hearing Elvis is still here ,who flew the planes into the twin towers and all the other rot that we are hearing these days -I know I must be a fool but I trust the governments that we elect to at least try their best ,yes even our present one who have mucked up so many things ,but you will never get me to believe they are plotting our downfall .
I do not even know why I bother because it will probably not affect me ,and if the sea rises so high as to drown us, I will have bought a boat and a pack of baked beans which I will not share with the conspiracy theorists :)

phil

sorry for the two postings .Must have been dr strangeloves arm again :)

Peter Lewis

Global warming is the Phlogiston Theory for the 21st century. But we have our Lavoisiers. They just have to be listened to.

Tim Klassen

Even if global warming is a hoax of sorts, it's to our long term advantage to pay attention to its implications, as if it were true, because to change our habits/lifestyles/culture for a greener earth will be positive outcome.