Just look at Jorb quoting the Oregon Petition which has been already exposed as entirely wrong, biased and misleading for already years, yet is still circulating among right wing websites… This is the best example you will ever get of outdated unchecked circular information.

I do not need to write more. From the point of view of a scientists, libertarians are intellectually largely bankrupt. And please do not come with the “left wing bias of scientists”. Everybody knows that sovietic scientists who criticized the USSR where also probably biased…

You are so wrong and your ideology so heavy in consequences you do not understand although you have the intellectual arrogance to think so.. I am not MD and I do not given any medical advise. It would be good for you all to read Althusius and understand why decisions have to be taken by the lowest possible level with the sufficient level of competence to take them.

I could probably bring you to a lab to introduce you to spectral absorption and scathering, but would you want to?

It looks to me like a lot of people are more attached to their ideology, no matter what the price on future generations will be.

I am right wing myself, but do not hesitate to denounce the intellectual level of right wingers. Worse !!! I am myself christian and absolutely think of most of them as morons who use the bible as a justification for their lack of education.

We live in a poor world. We are close to an unwesternization by the rejection of science and logic.

The fundamental problem here is contained in the second sentence of your article. Why cant you follow the details of climate science? You cant be too dim if you’re able to write coherently and maintain your own blog. Get off your arse and start looking before you comment. I will grant you, that in the finer detail, climate science can be as convoluted as quantum physics. But the broader strokes are available to everyone. This assumption that “we must accept the experts point of view” is the biggest problem in the world today because any special interest group trots out an “expert” and everyone just accepts what they say. This leaves you at the mercy of anyone who can shout louder. This attitude is responsible for

1. Hitlers attrocities against the jews (based on eugenics which was also very popular in the UK and the US circa 1920)

2. Every church pogrom, in fact every act of religious violence – everything from the massacre of the Cathars (around 15% of the european population at the time) by the Vatican in the 14th century to honour killings today. All rely on a “higher power” as authority for their action, rather than a logical/scientific rationale. You can add islamic terrorism to this list.

3. Every government and “popular” screw up. Rachel Carson was (in large part) responsible for the movement banning DDT and as a result killed at least 30 million people. Makes Stalin look like a reasonable dinner guest. You want proof that this was a bad idea (apart from the fact that much of the “science” in Silent Spring is easily debunked) then why have the WHO just lifted the ban and recommended it’s use to control Malaria.

4. The fact that more people died in the year after september 11 due to avoiding air travel than were killed in the actual attack (increase in traffic mortality vs reduction in air traffic). They died because they accepted the poplar line that 9/11 proved that air travel was unsafe. You’re more likely to choke to death on your food than die from a terrorist on your plane. This has been true in every year since air travel was invented INCLUDING 2001.

The bottom line, James, is that if you want any control over your life then you have to ask questions. You have to take responsibility for your life. Watching the pundits play a verbal game of tennis is no way to get a handle on a problem. And this problem, if allowed to run it’s course is going to cost trillions of pounds. Wouldn’t that money be better spent curing aids, cancer, ending hunger or poverty, ending disease etc etc

If you want the truth you must seek it out. It is your responsibility, it’s your life. The minute you rely on someone else to provide your truth, you grant them power over you. To some extent this is unavoidable, as no-one knows everything, but shouldn’t you, at least, investigate those who provide your truth before handing them power. Rather than just accepting whoever the government appoints?

As regards global warming…
1. the Mann Hockey Stick is a fraud. Even the US senate hearings on it say so. Tree rings (which formed the basis for Mann) are a good proxy for CO2 levels not temperature. So, funnily enough, they show more activity when CO2 goes up. Regardless of temperature.

2. An Inconvenient Truth is a work of fiction and propaganda. This is not my opinion. It’s from the UK High court.The key point that Al left out is that, on his big graph, CO2 FOLLOWS temperature by about 800 yrs. i.e. increased temperature raises CO2 levels, not the other way around. Both Al’s graph and my refutation are based on the Vostok Ice cores.

3. Arctic ice is above average this year. Last years minimum was an anomaly caused by cyclical changes in ocean currents. The antarctic ice sheet has been growing the whole time.

4. Hansen/GISS global temperature numbers are likewise a work of fiction. HadCRUT is not much better. The satelite numbers are much more comprehensive and show much less warming. Proxies based on things that do not have a separate reaction to CO2 (like trees) show the medieval warm period, the roman warming and the holocene optimum (greek empire). All of these periods correspond to high points in human civilisation.

5. The IPCC report was contributed to by 4000 scientist right? Wrong. Less than 3000 people contributed to the latest IPCC report, not all of them were scientists (economists and secretaries were included to bulk up the numbers). Only 60 scientists (and I use the term ironically) explicitly agreed with chapter 9 which said that humans were causing any warming (kind of a key point). Compare this with the oregon petition which has over 31,000 (verified) signatures from scientists (9,000 PhDs) stating that AGW is false.

6. Simple acid test. Why do the IPCC’s scientific reports (drafted by “scientists”) disagree with the summary for policy makers (drafted by politically motivated beauracrats).

All of this information is readily google-able. I am not a climate scientist, just an interested observer. If I can accumulate all of this (in about 10 mins a day) why cant you. Stop just accepting what you’re told. Ask some damn questions

I’m not asking you to take my word for it, find out for yourself. This is a different attitude than you will encounter from any alarmist (“The science is settled”)

Bollocks. Think! Question!
J

I don’t think that this is how the term is actually being used – especially by the (very admittedly very non-scientist) – MSM.

That’s a fair point, as is your subsequent comment about the “consensus” being used as a crude tool to squash dissent.

…data not archived…

It’s my job to archive data (climate model output) and make it available. I remember commenting somewhere else about data, but I can’t remember where: The point was that data archiving is not always all it should be in science. For example, many scientists know little about IT and the data for their papers often consists of hand-written notes in a lab book and a collection of Excel spreadsheets on the hard disk of their lab machine, with little order to it. Making these data available usually requires the hiring of someone with the appropriate skills and/or getting in the hardware, which many research groups can’t manage to do (IT support in a department may be little more than keeping the internet connection up and providing support for Microsoft Office). This isn’t a great state of affairs and various efforts are made to overcome this.

The “consensus” is often used … as a means to deny that there is a need to review the first approximation results.

I agree that this is dangerous.
My opinion is that the evidence so far does point towards AGW, but this is of course subject to review. Also, it by no means follows that I think there should be some sort of extreme green or marxist response to whatever problems climate change may cause. Some people seem too ready to draw a connection between the two and imagine that a climate problem must absolutely require heavy-handed state intervention, but it does not.

Absolutely agreed. Unfortunately, I don’t think that this is how the term is actually being used – especially by the (very admittedly very non-scientist) – MSM.

This is rather my point. Whenever the “consensus” is touted, it is done with the clear implication, threat even, that anyone not toeing the line is not doing so with the scientific method in mind, that because the “consensus” is overwhelming, any challenge or dissent must be due to poor motive.

As regards being wrong/first approximation, this (sorry I can’t resist) indeed a useful first approximation. However, what we are seeing with AGW is that much of the science isn’t – data not archived, therefore calcs not repeatable – and that the first approximation is getting really very ragged when compared with actual real life – the divergence problem. The “consensus” is often used (and this is of course a first approximation) as a means to deny that there is a need to review the first approximation results. That is also dangerous.

The Manhattan declaration is a great piece of propoganda (over 700 names!) but a lousy indicator of scientific disagreement with the general consensus that ‘there is AGW and that we can and ought to do something about it’ (I paraphrase).
A subset has been produced with 197 names on alleging that these people are climatologists, but when you take out the tv weather presenters, those with nothing more than an MSc and the retired then you’re left with about 100. When you take out the cranks, the industry lobbyists who’ve done no published climate research and the people whose doctorates & experience really don’t look like they’re related to climatology then you’re down to about 60, which isn’t very many at all.

…claims of consensus on AGW are false.

It depends on what you mean by consensus. If mention is made of “scientific consensus” I take it to mean that the majority of scientists accept the current hypotheses/theories/evidence &c. subject to the usual caveat that this only holds until such time as that is falsified (IMHO claims of AGW falsification are exaggerated). Take a look at this to see what I’m getting at. Consensus in this form is a useful indicator of what might be correct*, but one must understand that scientific ideas are not necessarily fixed and there is always dissent at some level. The way in which scientists are reported is also a problem, as shown here.

Like Mr. Marwood I’m a bit busy today but there are some comments I intend to make about the Manhattan declaration (probably on my own blog) when I get around to it.

* Everything you know is wrong. But some of it is a useful first approximation.
– Eric S. Raymond