I made no mention of “preserving the environment”. You are reading your own views into my post.

“So Real Climate is for people who like to stand around in a circle, and pat the guy in front of them on the back. It’s certainly not for open discourse on science issues. But you are welcome to believe otherwise.”

Well, from the point of view of this layperson, Real Climate provides a good deal of background to climate issues, and the comments sections certainly appear to include discussions on science.

You clearly have bad memories about your reception at Real Climate, and there is obviously much bad blood between the Real Climate people and the likes of Climate Audit, and perhaps AGW sceptics in general.

That’s unfortunate, but it’s often the way in scientific disputes – they become intractable, and the enmities persist without resolution.

Two points.

1. The article that heads this thread is about the difficulties of measuring temperatures in Antarctica, not about the methodology of the Steig study, just as I claimed.

2. My original claim was that scepticism about Antarctic temperatures arose in the wake of this study. Where AGW sceptics had previously accepted the Antarctic temperature record and used it to cast doubt on global warming, they are now sceptical about that same temperature record.

The most likely reason for this sudden bout of scepticism is the publication of the Steig study. So you are quite right to finger the study as the context for this doubt.

George E Smith: “Isn’t that what the whole political climate change debate is all about. It has very little to do with climate, and virtually nothing to do with catastrophe, but it does have to do with crippling the economies of the developed world.”

I don’t follow your argument. In the political arena the debate is about mitigating climate change. I don’t see anyone suggesting the best way to cripple the economies of developed countries.

In fact, most of the commentators that I read are concerned at preserving our existing civilisation and way of life. Sure, you’ll always get your Luddites and back-to-nature types, but I don’t think they represent the majority of people who are concerned about global warming.

As for witch doctors and voodoo, I think science does a better job of explaining the causes of climate events than witch doctors could offer. One of the reasons I frequent a website like Real Climate is because they offer explanations for the AGW theory in language that is reasonably accessible to the intelligent layman. “”"

Then Brendan you are simply not reading a broad enough selection of information sources.

The IPCC and KYOTO and similar accords, have nothing much to do with preserving the environment; from a climate point of view there is nothing wrong with the environment; it changes; it always has.

But the developed world runs on stored chemical energy; and other products of the “fossil” fuels business. The only viable primary energy option is Nuclear, and the same people who demonize Hydrocarbon energy sources also are against nuclear.

The demonization of hydrocarbon sourced energy and chemistry is all based on the mistaken belief that CO2 controls the climate; it doesn’t; and in view of that; the USA and most nations are already self sufficient on energy; or can get it readily from friendly sources.

If you don’t see that, then you need to do a lot more reading.

As for Reall Climate, I tried joining in on their discussions; they are not interested in alternative views of the Science.

I’ve been a Working physicist for 50 years; ion environments where the only criterion was that my stuff had to work, and make money for my employer. I wasn’t graded on peer reviewed papers or technical seminar presentations; the only peer reviewed papers I am even allowed to author, are filed in the US Patent Office.

So I have a very short attention span when it comes to dealing with people who have some agenda; that doesn’t really aim at getting to the scientific truth; to the extent that we can do that.

So Real Climate is for people who like to stand around in a circle, and pat the guy in front of them on the back.
It’s certainly not for open discourse on science issues. But you are welcome to believe otherwise.

Ignorance is NOT a deisease; we are all born with it; but stupidity has to be taught; and there are plenty of people willing and able to teach it.

You’ll find a good selection of them at Real Climate.

The post associated with this thread clearly acknowledges Mann, Steig 2008, as the context. Many commenters above have had no difficulty ascertaining this fact.

You are obstructing discourse with deliberately obtuse misdirections and misrepresentations of your counterparts’ reasoning.

Have a gander at CA on Harry. As stated above, despite false assertions to the contrary, the data are not available.

‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is not an accreditation of scientific practice. ‘Show all work’ is a minimal requirement. Your delusion is not contagious.

I guess one’s judgement depends on one’s perspective. Many climate sites – pro and con – are heavily political, one-sided and dismissive towards opponents.

But I wasn’t talking about tone, rather about the amount and depth of information about climate.

I’m sure there is. But the fact that the working class is or may be sceptical of “elites and political classes” does not necessarily say anything about the motivations of the latter. Moreover, I don’t believe that the elite are any more or less greedy than the working class. The difference is that elites have more opportunity to fill their pockets.

In any case, the thoroughgoing cynicism that you exhibit is ultimately counterproductive. If the “elites and political classes” are indeed thoroughly corrupt, you will have to discount the views of the likes of Christopher Monckton and Senator Inhofe and all those elite sceptical climate scientists.

I think what you might be trying to say is that you will trust some people but not others. If so, we would be on the same page.

I don’t follow your argument. In the political arena the debate is about mitigating climate change. I don’t see anyone suggesting the best way to cripple the economies of developed countries.

In fact, most of the commentators that I read are concerned at preserving our existing civilisation and way of life. Sure, you’ll always get your Luddites and back-to-nature types, but I don’t think they represent the majority of people who are concerned about global warming.

You are naive in the extreme if that is what you see.

I come from the working class, although I am a long way from there now, but there is lots of scepticism about the actual motives of the elites and political classes. They always claim that are trying to help prevent catastrophes all the while ensuring their pockets are full. Perhaps you are an aspiring political animal.

RC is a total travesty of what I believe science is all about – as Feynman put it, “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”:
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html

The reason only one side of the story appears at RC is that all other sides are either ruthlessly suppressed or distorted and ridiculed.

I don’t follow your argument. In the political arena the debate is about mitigating climate change. I don’t see anyone suggesting the best way to cripple the economies of developed countries.

In fact, most of the commentators that I read are concerned at preserving our existing civilisation and way of life. Sure, you’ll always get your Luddites and back-to-nature types, but I don’t think they represent the majority of people who are concerned about global warming.

As for witch doctors and voodoo, I think science does a better job of explaining the causes of climate events than witch doctors could offer. One of the reasons I frequent a website like Real Climate is because they offer explanations for the AGW theory in language that is reasonably accessible to the intelligent layman.

Isn’t that what the whole political climate change debate is all about. It has very little to do with climate, and virtually nothing to do with catastrophe, but it does have to do with crippling the economies of the developed world.
The old world socialists have seized the trappings of ecology and environmentalism and used that to foster fear among the ignorant.

It used to be that the witch doctors preyed on the fears of the natives, to gain controlling power over them. This evolved into the organised religions of the world which do the same thing, with the Priests demanding allegiance fromt heir flocks.

So the climate scaremongers, ar elittle more than the witchdoctors of primitive tribal voodoo. The worse they picture the coming calamity which they alone predict, the more political control over behavior they obtain.

Now they teach their tripe to our kids in school, so the kids are all brain washed, before they ever get out into the world. They even have young kids committing suicide to avoid the coming climate catastrophe. Little do they know that whatever climate catastrophe may come next, it is highly unlikely to be global warming; far more likely to be an ice age of some sort.

Well, scientists can become quite passionate in debate. However, the IPCC has warned of the risks to humans of climate change arising from the continued emission of greenhouse gases, and politicians have a responsibility to take these warnings seriously.

Given the tardy record of politicians in this matter, I’d say that they would rather ignore the problem. Their primary concern is the interests of their own territory, which very often overrule the wider interest, as we are now seeing with moves towards trade protectionism.

“…some people very rich while the hoi polloi will be getting poorer and poorer if not dying off like flies.”

That’s a very alarmist view. I doubt very much that any developed country would accept an economic system where a few became rich while the poor were allowed to die “like flies”.

As for poor countries, the IPCC makes specific mention of the need to provide assistance to poorer countries so they are not disadvantaged by climate change action.

And it may well be that newer technologies would be of great benefit to poorer countries, allowing them to leapfrog past the fossil fuel stage, in the same way that Asian countries were able to quickly industrialise by borrowing western technology and avoiding the development stage.

George E. Smith (13:07:49) :

Definitely a scene that doesn’t happen on primetime TV.

Next week, buy her the coffee, maybe she’ll lend you her copy of Binary Alloys. “”

Ric, it turns out she doesn’t havea copy of “The Constitution of Binary Alloys.”; I would almost bet she’s never seen a copy.

But she soon will; I ordered a used copy (2nd Edition) from Amazon, and also the First Supplement; so in about two weeks I will have it in my library again.

It turns out, that we have outsourced so much of our work to “overseas” and lost so many technical people to attrition and “work force management” that we don’t have a lot of people who seem to know much basic stuff any more. Everybody knows how to Google; but there are few around here that could hold a conversation with sticks on a desert island sandy beach.

And by the way; to Phil, thanks for posting the Shakespeare text of “Sylvia”. I’m not surprised to find its origin.

I was never a Shakespeare fan at school; well English was the only foreign language I ever studied, and it was mostly literature, which bored the hell out of me. But I know I have seen Othello on the stage, and pretty sure I have seen no other of the plays. What a loss.

But I’m probably the only person on this planet, who ever read the entire eight volumes of “The Prose Works of Richard Wagner.” A couple of years ago, I mentioned that on a Sailing website, and a friend at the UofA went into the Library, and found that the Library Cards for those books were still in the back of the books, and still had my signatures on them from the 1960 era. They had been so little read, that the library staff hadn’t gotten around to inputting them into their computer data base. Two of the volumes had no other signatures but mine; either before or since I read them.

She flogged the Library cards out of the whole set, and sent them to me.

George

Whatever, the report is sure to generate further study, especially since some other climate scientists have expressed reservations over the findings. And that’s what science is all about: studies, debates, more studies, all very productive.

The other interesting aspect of this event is that we’re possibly seeing in real time the process of convergence as a scientific theory evolves.

True, science dances into knowledge, one step forward two steps sideways etc., true of any scientific discipline.

BUT let us not lose sight that what should have been a measured debate between scientists has become a big clobbering stick used by politicians to stampede the world governments into disastrous energy policies, and pyramid schemes that will make some people very rich while the hoi polloi will be getting poorer and poorer if not dying off like flies.

“Children icely nicely” is really not the issue.