Nick Cohen On This Week

[Avon]

There is absolutely no way of proving what percentage of any warming that may or may not be occurring is caused by man made CO2.

So it all comes down to a balance of probabilities, which frankly is anyones guess.

At the end of the day, no politician is going to wreck their countries economy on the off chance that man made global warming might wreck their countries economy.

Of course all politicians love lining their own pockets, flying round the world on junkets, grandstanding and claiming they have saved the planet

But that is a different issue entirely.

A balance of probabilities analysis that ended up 50/50 would be anyones guess. And, yet, people stop smoking when their doctors tell them there's a 25% chance that they will die of lung cancer if they don't. Uncertainty about an outcomes does not mean there are no reasons for action to avoid an unpleasant outcome But, granted, you can't just magic risks out of the air like WMD in Iraq or dirty bomb attack on London to justify war on another country or domestic population. Time and time again large numbers of people have been saved by a precautionary approach (cholera in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, eg) where the balance of probabilities was in favour of action but where the science was some way from complete settlement. In this case, much more is understood about the process. I talk not of human folly and hypocrisy, there's enough of that for all, but the science is overwhelming. It is no conspiracy. Get over it. Edited December 12, 2009 by Avon

[Traktion]

I still have yet to meet anyone who, starting from a disinterested point of view, ended up as a sceptic about the science of AGW after a decent amount of study.

I'm one of those. In fact, I was a believer years ago, but after doing my research, I concluded the evidence was insufficient.

[Game_Over]

A balance of probabilities analysis that ended up 50/50 would be anyones guess. And, yet, people stop smoking when their doctors tell them there's a 25% chance that they will die of lung cancer if they don't. Uncertainty about an outcomes does not mean there are no reasons for action to avoid an unpleasant outcome But, granted, you can't just magic risks out of the air like WMD in Iraq or dirty bomb attack on London to justify war on another country or domestic population. Time and time again large numbers of people have been saved by a precautionary approach (cholera in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, eg) where the balance of probabilities was in favour of action but where the science was some way from complete settlement. In this case, much more is understood about the process. I talk not of human folly and hypocrisy, there's enough of that for all, but the science is overwhelming. It is no conspiracy. Get over it.

In that case tell me exactly by what percent CO2 has risen in the atmosphere in the last 10 years

How much of that is man made

By what percent global temperature has risen in the last 10 years

And what percentage of that can be scientifically proven to have been caused by man made CO2 emissions.

Personally I am 90% sure that man made CO2 has a warming effect

But I am 90% sure that the effect is insignificant

I am, however, 100% certain that following the worst global recession since the 1930's, not a single politician is going to do anything that will damage their own countries economic recovery.

I am also 100% certain that global warming is infinitely preferable to global cooling.

[bogbrush]

The worldwide network of scientists working at Universities with similar methods and peer review (not media-led) quality control is both a product of the same intellectual tradition that produced these breakthroughs and continues to produce them every year. And that includes commercial aviation, microchips, DNA, anti-biotics and pretty much all the things that keeps modern civilisation going and advancing. Why do you think the numbers of scientists on the two basic sides of the equation is so uneven?

I'm no fan of UEA. There is undoubtedly a bit of a bandwagon in research activity in climate change, though the problem here is in the social sciences and humanities (eg climate change and theatre; climate change and football blah blah blah). Also, hypocrisy - 20,000 plus flying/driving/hitch-hiking to Copenhagen. But this does not affect the basic science of the matter one bit.

I'm not sure what's going on at UEA. But consider this: the scientists are to busy either drinking lattes in Copenhagen or with their research (and don't have the money) to bug the phones, hack the computers or receive the media training to defeat the contrarians on tv debates. What would they find out if they did? We already know that the Bush administration doctored reports for several years when they didn't like what the climate scientists were telling them and we have the Luntz memo to help us understand the real agenda behind much of the US sceptic approach. We also know that the amount of money spent on PR and sceptic spin by the oil companies far surpasses anything given to UEA.

What saddens me is that ordinary, decent people are being suckered into doing the Oil and energy companies' work for free...

*http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf (Frank Luntz memo to George Bush setting out advantages of deliberate obfuscation of climate research)

* http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html (doctoring of White House reports)

Oh dear, desperate stuff here.

So now all scientists use the same methods as the goons at UEA, and their work is in the "tradition"? I guess you mean they wear lab coats and hold test tubes. And because George Bush is a crook, it's ok to be one too?

I'm saddened that you're saddened enough to try snide digs that "ordinary, decent people are being suckered into doing the Oil and energy companies' work for free", which of course is just your way of saying that anyone disagreeing with you is a crook or a sap. Are you Nick Cohen in real life?

[Game_Over]

Not Israel or the extreme regimes specifically, though you could see Israel as a geopolitical proxy for the West, and the regimes as incubators for extremism.

The argument that we are channelling funds to our enemies has merit:

The Fall of the House of Saud

Sourcewatch: Funding Terrorism

If we buy their oil

They use the money to buy arms off us

Then we use the oil they sold us to pound the arms they bought off us into scrap

Then I'm not convinced they are getting the best half of the deal

[Take Me Back To London!]

Abbott goes with the flow.

She's not very bright.

There was an excellent film made by a black female barrister about inner city problems on This Week a few months ago and Abbott's knowledge, expertise and solutions were embarrassingly poor.

[Avon]

Oh dear, desperate stuff here.

So now all scientists use the same methods as the goons at UEA, and their work is in the "tradition"? I guess you mean they wear lab coats and hold test tubes. And because George Bush is a crook, it's ok to be one too?

I'm saddened that you're saddened enough to try snide digs that "ordinary, decent people are being suckered into doing the Oil and energy companies' work for free", which of course is just your way of saying that anyone disagreeing with you is a crook or a sap. Are you Nick Cohen in real life?

White coats and test tubes. Bit of a simplification of me, but yeah, that's basically it. There's a common scientific method underpinning all of the disciplines relevant to climate science: biology, physics, chemistry being the main ones. I'm not saying that it's ok to be a crook. But that, because there are documented cases of skulduggery on both sides, the UEA incident does not create any more doubt than existed before it was uncovered. And there wasn't much doubt before it was uncovered. UEA is a small part of a global scientific consensus, and, yes, it is a consensus if 99 per cent of practicing scientists support the theory. Technically, it is true that the AGW theory is impossible to prove as such given that the lab is the earth itself. Like evolution, it is unclear how many supporting bits of data are needed before it can be treated like a fact with same degree of confidence as evolution. Probably when the world is under water and we've long switched to eating synthetic meat will it be declared a 'fact.' Also, there are many things to argue about, eg whether the 2C threshold the policymakers are so keen on is a real threshold.

To your other point. I am interested in the mechanism of contestation. Some of the denialists are saps and some are crooks. But then believing in AGW for the wrong reasons (because it pushes your own political agenda; or simply that you like to demonstrate) can make you a sap. And there may be some crooks amongst the 1000s of climate scientists as well (statistics would suggest that at least some of them are unfaithful to their wives, others fiddle their expenses, so there's bound to be a few crooks amongst them). But none of this affects the overwhelming evidence for AGW. If you get hold of a CO2 measuring device and go to any hill top anywhere in the world you will see a reading of 385 ppm. Not even the sceptics deny that. They also do not deny that the concentration was 280 or thereabouts in 1750. Anyone who denies this is either a fool or a crook. The implications of these figures is what is at stake. There is a documented mechanism for how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere that you will be taught in any GCE class worldwide - I wager even in North Korea or Iran. This is good news, otherwise we would experience a rather chilly moon-like -18C. I choose to believe that it is this documented effect that explains why increasing CO2 through industrialisation will have, and is probably already having, an impact on the earth's climate. I don't mind that you believe the opposite. But it does bother me that you call it science.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Avon

[bogbrush]

White coats and test tubes. Bit of a simplification of me, but yeah, that's basically it. There's a common scientific method underpinning all of the disciplines relevant to climate science: biology, physics, chemistry being the main ones. I'm not saying that it's ok to be a crook. But that, because there are documented cases of skulduggery on both sides, the UEA incident does not create any more doubt than existed before it was uncovered. And there wasn't much doubt before it was uncovered. UEA is a small part of a global scientific consensus, and, yes, it is a consensus if 99 per cent of practicing scientists support the theory.

Well since that's rubbish you're not showing much personal respect for the scientific method, are you?

And I love the idea that you think we can trade off lies so once MMGW models prove to be frigged, they can still be true providing someone else lied about something else. Classic.

There is a documented mechanism for how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere that you will be taught in any GCE class worldwide - I wager even in North Korea or Iran. This is good news, otherwise we would experience a rather chilly moon-like -18C. I choose to believe that it is this documented effect that explains why increasing CO2 through industrialisation will have, and is probably already having, an impact on the earth's climate. I don't mind that you believe the opposite. But it does bother me that you call it science.

The really good news is that it pales in comparison with the effect of water vapour, which is information probably also available in classrooms though you must have missed school that day.

For what it's worth, it doesn't bother me that you think you're being scientific; I've become used to the self-delusion of the MMGW adherents and if it makes them happy that's fine by me.

[mdman]

White coats and test tubes. Bit of a simplification of me, but yeah, that's basically it. There's a common scientific method underpinning all of the disciplines relevant to climate science: biology, physics, chemistry being the main ones. I'm not saying that it's ok to be a crook. But that, because there are documented cases of skulduggery on both sides, the UEA incident does not create any more doubt than existed before it was uncovered. And there wasn't much doubt before it was uncovered. UEA is a small part of a global scientific consensus, and, yes, it is a consensus if 99 per cent of practicing scientists support the theory. Technically, it is true that the AGW theory is impossible to prove as such given that the lab is the earth itself. Like evolution, it is unclear how many supporting bits of data are needed before it can be treated like a fact with same degree of confidence as evolution. Probably when the world is under water and we've long switched to eating synthetic meat will it be declared a 'fact.' Also, there are many things to argue about, eg whether the 2C threshold the policymakers are so keen on is a real threshold.

Avon

You seem like a knowledgeable chap

Could you provide me with references to the papers that prove the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming?

Failing that (and CAGW is the reason this Copenhagen conference has been given such urgency), could you provide references to the papers that prove the hypothesis of non-catastrophic man-made global warming?

The work done by the IPCC-approved scientists does not prove causation. They may prove correlation. However, there is a huge problem with the research they have published. In short, they have revised their own data (from the 1990 IPCC report) in subsequent reports in order to demonstrate the hockey stick that is their smoking gun for CAGW.

1990 - no hockey stick graph

1995 - Michael Mann's hockey stick appears, based on his analysis of tree ring data, an analysis that eliminated the medieval warming period and little ice age so that only recent warming is seen

Between 1995 and 2000 - Michael Mann's tree ring data look suspect. The IPCC turn to Briffa for alternative tree ring data that supports the hockey stick. After pressure (and you can read the email exchange as this was leaked recently - link), Briffa was 'encouraged to alter or hide tree ring data from 1960 onwards where recorded temperatures rose but tree ring data implied temperatures had fallen. The significance of this is tree ring data cannot be relied on to determine past temperatures by proxy, so the whole thrust of the IPCC effort - eliminating the MWP in order to show that current temperatures are unprecedented, was undermined

We do have other proxy data, specifically ice cores. The link here is to a temperature series from an ice core located in Greenland. Unlike the tree ring data, it demonstrates the medieval warming period (and is hence consistent with historical data unlike Briffa's and Mann's tree trunk analysis)

Watch the video - it gives some perspective to the current temperature of the planet.

The data in the video comes from the NOAA

I will be interested if you can provide links to papers proving global warming.

[Avon]

Well since that's rubbish you're not showing much personal respect for the scientific method, are you?

And I love the idea that you think we can trade off lies so once MMGW models prove to be frigged, they can still be true providing someone else lied about something else. Classic.

The really good news is that it pales in comparison with the effect of water vapour, which is information probably also available in classrooms though you must have missed school that day.

For what it's worth, it doesn't bother me that you think you're being scientific; I've become used to the self-delusion of the MMGW adherents and if it makes them happy that's fine by me.

That's just bull*** mate. No chance at all that someone who misrepresents the facts like this will change their mind. So I say this for neutrals who may be reading this and thinking that HPC has become a wing of the climate denial movement. 99 percent = 99/100. If you discount social scientists and humanities people, I challenge you to find more than 1 per cent of scientists based in UK universities who hold that (i) humans are not responsible for the vast majority of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1750-2100; (ii) that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not higher than they have been for 100,000 years; (iii) that this increase is not responsible for most of the warming witnessed since 1850 and will go on to have a significant warming effect in the period 2010-2100. 1 per cent.

There's no evidence whatsoever that the changes in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere can be other than a minor influence on the climate in the 1750-2100. If there is and you've found it, cite the peer-reviewed paper.

I don't 'think' I'm being scientific. I don't believe in the case for AGW because I want to or because it chimes with my world view. And I don't bend the rules of science to fit my beliefs, self-interest or unwillingness to accept that human activity can have unintended consequences for the environment. That's true delusion.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Avon

[bogbrush]

That's just bull*** mate. No chance at all that someone who misrepresents the facts like this will change their mind. So I say this for neutrals who may be reading this and thinking that HPC has become a wing of the climate denial movement. 99 percent = 99/100. If you discount social scientists and humanities people, I challenge you to find more than 1 per cent of scientists based in UK universities who hold that (i) humans are not responsible for the vast majority of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1750-2100; (ii) that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not higher than they have been for 100,000 years; (iii) that this increase is not responsible for most of the warming witnessed since 1850 and will go on to have a significant warming effect in the period 2010-2100. 1 per cent.

There's no evidence whatsoever that the changes in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere can be other than a minor influence on the climate in the 1750-2100. If there is and you've found it, cite the peer-reviewed paper.

I don't 'think' I'm being scientific. I don't believe in the case for AGW because I want to or because it chimes with my world view. And I don't bend the rules of science to fit my beliefs, self-interest or unwillingness to accept that human activity can have unintended consequences for the environment. That's true delusion.

Here's what you said;

There is a documented mechanism for how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere that you will be taught in any GCE class worldwide - I wager even in North Korea or Iran. This is good news, otherwise we would experience a rather chilly moon-like -18C. I choose to believe that it is this documented effect that explains why increasing CO2 through industrialisation will have, and is probably already having, an impact on the earth's climate. I don't mind that you believe the opposite. But it does bother me that you call it science.

So you are saying that it is CO2 that prevents the Earth being -18C. That, my friend, is complete nonsense.

And you are the one who asserts 99% of scientists are up for this. Would you link to the source of that please, because that's also total cr@p.

mdman has asked you far more searching questions, I'll be checking the thread to see what you think of them.

[Avon]

Avon

You seem like a knowledgeable chap

Could you provide me with references to the papers that prove the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming?

Failing that (and CAGW is the reason this Copenhagen conference has been given such urgency), could you provide references to the papers that prove the hypothesis of non-catastrophic man-made global warming?

The work done by the IPCC-approved scientists does not prove causation. They may prove correlation. However, there is a huge problem with the research they have published. In short, they have revised their own data (from the 1990 IPCC report) in subsequent reports in order to demonstrate the hockey stick that is their smoking gun for CAGW.

1990 - no hockey stick graph

1995 - Michael Mann's hockey stick appears, based on his analysis of tree ring data, an analysis that eliminated the medieval warming period and little ice age so that only recent warming is seen

Between 1995 and 2000 - Michael Mann's tree ring data look suspect. The IPCC turn to Briffa for alternative tree ring data that supports the hockey stick. After pressure (and you can read the email exchange as this was leaked recently - link), Briffa was 'encouraged to alter or hide tree ring data from 1960 onwards where recorded temperatures rose but tree ring data implied temperatures had fallen. The significance of this is tree ring data cannot be relied on to determine past temperatures by proxy, so the whole thrust of the IPCC effort - eliminating the MWP in order to show that current temperatures are unprecedented, was undermined

We do have other proxy data, specifically ice cores. The link here is to a temperature series from an ice core located in Greenland. Unlike the tree ring data, it demonstrates the medieval warming period (and is hence consistent with historical data unlike Briffa's and Mann's tree trunk analysis)

Watch the video - it gives some perspective to the current temperature of the planet.

The data in the video comes from the NOAA

I will be interested if you can provide links to papers proving global warming.

This looks like something lifted form the 'Great Global Warming Swindle.' The Hockey Stick issue, along with a number of other claims, is well dealt with by John Houghton here: <http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf> and many, many other places on the web. The New Scientist, Nature, Science and other respected publications have dealt with the issue, if you're interested. Elsewhere, you might like to go to amazon.co.uk and get hold of any decent atmospheric chemistry textbook for Level I University students.

Scientists should really stay away from the idea of 'catastrophic climate change', in my view, as it is quite rhetorical to say the least; and the notion of 'catastrophe' is a normative/sociological/political concept not a scentific one. I am a social scientist by training, and teach philosophy of science / social science. So, it is not for me to answer some the more technical questions you have. Houghton and others have already done this, many, many, times over. Yet the same basic misunderstandings still keep coming back, like Freddie Kruger. If I did try to respond, then any minor errors I made would be jumped on by the sceptics as evidence that AGW does not exist. But it is my firm view that any decently educated person can learn enough about climate change through an open university course, A level in physics/chemistry, or independent but directed reading programme to scrutinise the IPCC reports 1990-2007. I, for one, would have no problem debating anyone who has actually read the technical summaries from these reports and taken the effort to screen out the obvious clangers in the sceptic arsenal (the MWP; volcanoes emit more CO2 than people; IPCC scientists are all crooks etc).

All scientific knowledge is based on the idea that someone tries to disprove a previous simple truth; or render more simple a previous complexity; or render more complex a previous simplicity. But science, as Monbiot pointed out the other week in his column, in conducted in writing not in soundbites on Newsnight or This Week. That's the real reason the scientists lose it when faced with sceptics on tv. Their natural inclination is to think, 'um, that's interesting, let's think of an experiment to find out and then send the results to Nature. 2 years later, the article appears in press.' BUt what do you do if the same misunderstandings get thrown at you year after year? That's no excuse for having the same media skills as Moira Hindley, but completely understandable. We train scientists to be obsessive geeks, not to be contestants on X Factor. What winds me up, as a social scientist with a heavy interest in environment and psychology of denial, is (i) that many of the claims the sceptics make have been dealt with in peer review but they keep resurfacing in an obvious attempt merely to create confusion; and (ii) the obvious and duplicitous chain of major claims adopted by the main sceptic group, which is obviously committed to the denial of AGW despite any evidence that might emerge. EG:

(1) The world is not warming >>> (2) The world is warming but it's not humans (eg it's the sun directly; the sun indirectly; it's water vapour; it's natural variation) >>> (3) the world is warming, and it's only partly humans > >> (4) the world is warming, it is humans, but technology will save us >>> (5) the world is warming, it is humans, but it would be too costly to do anything about it and technology probably won't save us, but that's ok since doing anything about it would divert resources away from other more important questions.

How can any decent scientist cope with being bombarded with claims from any of these angles cope? Just the jumping around within category (2) shows you there's something deeply wrong at the heart of the sceptic movement....

Edited December 12, 2009 by Avon

[Avon]

Here's what you said;

So you are saying that it is CO2 that prevents the Earth being -18C. That, my friend, is complete nonsense.

And you are the one who asserts 99% of scientists are up for this. Would you link to the source of that please, because that's also total cr@p.

mdman has asked you far more searching questions, I'll be checking the thread to see what you think of them.

Come on, you know exactly what I meant. In the technical sense, yes, if CO2 did not exist in the concentrations it does exist then it is hard to see how the atmosphere would contain enough GHGs to keep the surface at the average temperature it is (15C). The point is that GHGs are obviously a 'good thing' in the sense that they, along with many other physical factors, keep the earth much warmer than would be the case thereby sustaining life. This is not to say that the earth is on average 15C at the surface BECAUSE CO2 exists. That would be stretching the notion of causation too far - causation must be more than merely finding necessary conditions. But the temperature-CO2 relation is obviously much more than correlation, as a poster claimed in a previous post. So, yes, I am saying that increases in the global concentration of CO2, all things being equal, will always lead to a higher temperature at the surface. The existence of the associated physical process on earth (the natural greenhouse effect) and not on the moon, is a reasonable (if incomplete) explanation of why life on earth of the kind that supports mammals and primates is sustainable and similar life on the moon is not sustainable (equally, there are planets in the solar system where there is a runaway global warming effect that makes such life unsustainable). I don't think even Lindzen, Michels or other scientist sceptics deny the existence of the natural greenhouse effect, except they would view it as a simplification and not susceptible to enhancement through additional GHGs emitted by humans.

[mdman]

This looks like something lifted form the 'Great Global Warming Swindle.' The Hockey Stick issue, along with a number of other claims, is well dealt with by John Houghton here: <http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf> and many, many other places on the web. The New Scientist, Nature, Science and other respected publications have dealt with the issue, if you're interested. Elsewhere, you might like to go to amazon.co.uk and get hold of any decent atmospheric chemistry textbook for Level I University students.

Not quite. The Briffa revelations are new. The elimination of the medieval warming period is not proof that CAGW does not exist. But it raises at least 2 sets of issues, scientific and questionmarks over integrity

Scientific - if the MWP is real and temperatures were higher (what with Greenland being green), what was the physical mechanism by which this happened? Was it CO2, another GHG, solar activity or some other factor? Why is answering this question important? You seem convinced that Mann-made CO2 can be the only explanation for the temperature rise during the 20th century. That is a belief. In order to turn it into a testable hypothesis, the scientific method has to be applied. Specifically:

- one has to explain periods in the past where the Earth was hotter without man-made CO2

- one has to demonstrate that these factors were in play then

- one has to demonstrate that these factors are not in play now

- one has to demonstrate that in past periods, increases in CO2 concentration were associated with the sort of temperature rise we say in the 20th century

Out of interest, what is the change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 1900 to 2000? And do increases in concentration cause a linear, logarithmic or exponential increase in the radiative activity of CO2?

Integrity - why have the people at the heart of the IPCC gone to such lengths to 'prove' the hockey stick? If the science is sound independent of this, they have no need to resort to the sort of statistical fudges (fudge factors, selection bias, hiding data) that if, for example, a medical researcher were to engage in, would land him probably in jail and definitely struck off. Einstein and Newton did not need to construct peripheral highly dubious experiments to prove their hypotheses - their theories stood tall and did not require these machinations

The question of integrity assumes greater importance now. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has close financial links to the Tata group which stands to make $1bn from the EU ETS by closing Corus. We know Lord Stern has a strong financial interest in getting a global carbon trading scheme going. He has a company positioned to become the carbon 'credit rating agency'.

The accusations levelled against some anti AGW proponents - that they are shills for big oil - may have some truth. But this works the other way too.

Finally you continue characterising this as the vast majority of scientists vs a bunch of denialists. The reality is different. There are many sceptical voices within climate science and physics. There are whole areas of climate science that may have been set back decades due to the fanatical attachment to CO2

[Game_Over]

In that case tell me exactly by what percent CO2 has risen in the atmosphere in the last 10 years

How much of that is man made

By what percent global temperature has risen in the last 10 years

And what percentage of that can be scientifically proven to have been caused by man made CO2 emissions.

Personally I am 90% sure that man made CO2 has a warming effect

But I am 90% sure that the effect is insignificant

I am, however, 100% certain that following the worst global recession since the 1930's, not a single politician is going to do anything that will damage their own countries economic recovery.

I am also 100% certain that global warming is infinitely preferable to global cooling.

See that no one has been able to answer these simple questions either.

[tinker]

Here's what I think. Those that believe in the whole MMGW thing should voluntarily put their hands in the pocket and fund whatever it is they think will do the job. Then it will be your money you are pissing in the wind, you can even fund the bent scientists who are happy to fiddle the figures to suit the politically driven agenda.

I will opt out because at best I believe the evidence of man's influence is far from conclusive and at worst it is a fraudulent scam. When I put my X on a ballot is it so that a politician broadly acts in my or at least the general interest, there is far too much going on that is beyond the national interest and beyond democracy.

The quasi-religious, propagandist and uncomfortably arrogant overtones of this whole saga, with 'environmentalists' herded and whipped up like an X Factor audience that gets excited at a big note sung in tune, is not for me, and I guess is not for most people who look on bewildered and with growing dissonance.

If the likes of Avon, Fuffy, Snowfux... 'believe' then feel free put your hands in your pocket, but count me out. You are free to have your view of the world, but please don't try to impose that view on me.

[bogbrush]

Come on, you know exactly what I meant. In the technical sense, yes, if CO2 did not exist in the concentrations it does exist then it is hard to see how the atmosphere would contain enough GHGs to keep the surface at the average temperature it is (15C). The point is that GHGs are obviously a 'good thing' in the sense that they, along with many other physical factors, keep the earth much warmer than would be the case thereby sustaining life. This is not to say that the earth is on average 15C at the surface BECAUSE CO2 exists. That would be stretching the notion of causation too far - causation must be more than merely finding necessary conditions. But the temperature-CO2 relation is obviously much more than correlation, as a poster claimed in a previous post. So, yes, I am saying that increases in the global concentration of CO2, all things being equal, will always lead to a higher temperature at the surface. The existence of the associated physical process on earth (the natural greenhouse effect) and not on the moon, is a reasonable (if incomplete) explanation of why life on earth of the kind that supports mammals and primates is sustainable and similar life on the moon is not sustainable (equally, there are planets in the solar system where there is a runaway global warming effect that makes such life unsustainable). I don't think even Lindzen, Michels or other scientist sceptics deny the existence of the natural greenhouse effect, except they would view it as a simplification and not susceptible to enhancement through additional GHGs emitted by humans.

Playing fast & loose with any kind of precision them. It's ok that you just typed garbage because "we all know" that what you meant was something completely different.

Packed with supositions too.

Tip: fewer words gets messages across just as well.

[Traktion]

(i) humans are not responsible for the vast majority of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1750-2100; (ii) that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not higher than they have been for 100,000 years; (iii) that this increase is not responsible for most of the warming witnessed since 1850 and will go on to have a significant warming effect in the period 2010-2100.

Points (i) and (ii) I do not have an argument with. However, (iii) I do - there is only a correlation between CO2 and temperature and there is evidence that the temperature records are not even as accurate as they could be. Then consider that the temperature has both been a lot hotter and colder even over the last couple of thousand years by some measurements (eg. ice cores). The IPCC hockey stick is full of holes and the "homogenized" surface station data appears to be misleading too. You mention that solar variation can't account for the warming, but there has been clear correlation in the recent past (and for long before) and other natural cycles need to be considered too. Consider this short paper: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SolarCycleLengthandGlobalTemperatureAnomalies1.pdf (link found in pro-AGW Monbiot's own rant here)

Besides the notable trend of cooler global temperatures following longer solar cycles and warmer global

temperatures following shorter solar cycles, the other notable feature of the data is the distinctly higher

temperature anomalies observed during the most recent three solar cycles. A trend line fitted through

the most recent three solar cycles is nearly parallel to a trend line through the previous nine solar cycles,

but is displaced 0.3‐0.4°C higher. If the difference was purely the result of CO2 increases, a steadily

increasing departure from the previous trend would be expected, and not a distinct jump and then a

continuation of the old trend at a warmer temperature level. The timing of the data jump happens to

be the mid‐to‐late 1970s, at a time of a noted global climate shift. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation

changed from a negative to a positive phase at that time, and could explain part of the discrepancy.

There is a lot we don't know about these long, natural, cycles and they may well (seems plausible, IMO) that they are linked to solar activity too.

If CO2 wasn't a trace gas and there was evidence it had driven temperature changes in the past (rather than responded to them), I would be happier to embrace the AGW theory. However, the evidence isn't conclusive and the next decade or so gives us the perfect opportunity to see how much effect a drastically reduced solar activity has on the climate. The last decade has caused a few questions to be asked, but the next may see plenty more.

EDIT: added some

Edited December 12, 2009 by Traktion

[King Stromba]

There is no global warming.

[Avon]

Playing fast & loose with any kind of precision them. It's ok that you just typed garbage because "we all know" that what you meant was something completely different.

Packed with supositions too.

Tip: fewer words gets messages across just as well.

Occams Razor only applies when something can be explained more simply without loss of explanatory power. But this clearly does not apply here as the objections never take into account the complexity of the atmosphere, which requires effort and study to understand. Anyone who did not wish to deliberately misinterpret what I said, or who had made any effort to study the natural/enhanced greenhouse effect, would have understood what I meant. I gave you a simple relationship and now you reject my more full explanation as evasion. So which is it you want - the simply view or the fuller complex view. Thus is the duplicity at the heart of the sceptical case.

The hockey stick issues are well documented online. Any neutrals out there who question the consensus can read the Oreskes paper and then google further to see the subsequent debate to determine who are the real scientists and who are the real charlatans here (<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>) Oreskes found that the ratio of peer-reviews scientific papers that accepted the basics of AGW versus those that denied the process to be roughly 1:1000 (well, 0:924, actually, but I'll give you one for free). I supplement this by personal experience that the proportion of practicing scientists in accredited research units, universities, meteorological institutes in Europe is probably somewhere between 1:100 and 1:1000. Consensus is usually defined as "an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole." There is some ambiguity here. But if you say that a very loud and media savvy group of individuals making up <0.01 of a population can turn a consensus into a non-consensus then that, for me, stretches the meaning of consensus to breaking point.

As to the real issue, sometimes the <0.01 slice of a population is right. This is not one of those cases.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Avon

[mdman]

The hockey stick issues are well documented online. Any neutrals out there who question the consensus can read the Oreskes paper and then google further to see the subsequent debate to determine who are the real scientists and who are the real charlatans here (<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>) Oreskes found that the ratio of peer-reviews scientific papers that accepted the basics of AGW versus those that denied the process to be roughly 1:1000 (well, 0:924, actually, but I'll give you one for free).

The hockey stick has been undermined by the leaked data from the CRU. This happened in November 2009. Although your link doesn't work for me, I doubt it relates to research done since the leak.

The IPCC case has been undermined by the IPCC and its most fervent AGW 'scientists' itself, not by sceptics. Its temperature graph changed from its 1990 report to the 1995 report. The basis of that change (tree ring data) has been utterly undermined by the email correspondence, computer code and experimental data of the scientists involved.