Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature's 'denier' gaffe

I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony

=========================================================

Dear Dr Howlett,

The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.  

What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?

A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.

I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That

Yours sincerely

Rodney Leach

Lord Leach of Fairford

==========================================================

I was surprised to see WUWT mentioned. I thank Lord Leach for the hat tip.

If you haven’t written a letter, you still can. See the details here:

Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature

Some letters to the editor in the UK might also be helpful.

UPDATE: Jo Nova has an excellent letter also:

Dear Dr Phil Bain,

Right now, it’s almost my life’s work to communicate the empirical evidence on anthropogenic climate change.

I can help you with your research on deniers. I have studied the mental condition of denial most carefully. There is a simple key to converting the convictions of people in this debate, and I have seen it work hundreds of times. Indeed, my own convictions that lasted 17 years were turned around in a few days. I can help you. It would be much simpler than you think.

Firstly, to save time and money we must analyze the leaders of the denial movement. I have emailed or spoken to virtually all of them.

They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century. According to Hansen et al 19841, Bony et al 20062, and the IPCC AR4 report3, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2°C (i.e. before feedbacks).

All they need are is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models.  Key leaders in the denial movement have been asking for this data for years. Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback4) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations.

Since science is based on observations and measurements of the real world, it follows that a denier of science (rather than a denier of propaganda) must be denying real world data. I’d be most grateful if you could explain what “deniers” deny. Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence, yet must be failing badly at communicating that this is the crucial point because none of the esteemed lead authors of IPCC working Group I seem to have realized that this paltry point is all that is needed. All this mess could be cleared up with an email.

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, so the observations they deny must be written up many times in the peer review literature, right? After five years of study I am still not sure which instrument has made these key observations. Do deniers deny weather balloon results, or satellite data, or ice cores?

When  you find this paper and the measurements,  it will convince many of the key denier leaders. (But being the exacting personality type that they are, deniers will also expect to see the raw data. So you’ll need to also make sure that the authors of said paper have made all the records and methods available, but of course, all good scientists do that already don’t they?)

As a diligent researcher, I’m sure you would not have described a group with such a unequivocally strong label unless you were certain it applied. It would be disastrous for an esteemed publication like Nature to mistakenly insult Nobel prize winning physicists, NASA astronauts, and thousands of scientists who have asked for empirical evidence, only to find that the Nature authors themselves were unable to name papers (or instruments) with empirical evidence that their subject group called “deniers” denied.

If those papers (God forbid) do not exist, then the true deniers would turn out to be the researchers who denied that empirical evidence is key to scientific confidence in a theory. The true deniers would not be the skeptics who asked for evidence, but the name-calling researchers who did not test their own assumptions.

The fate of the planet rests on your shoulders. If you can find the observations that the IPCC can’t, you could change the path of international action. Should you find the evidence, I will be delighted to redouble my efforts to communicate the empirical evidence related to climate change.

Awaiting your reply keenly,

Joanne Nova

—————–

REFERENCES

1 Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]

2 Bony, S., et al., 2006: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Clim., 19, 3445–3482.

3 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8.6.2.3.  p630 [PDF].

4 IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14, p631 [PDF] see also Page 632.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Phil C

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.

Bob W in NC

It appears that Lord Leach affirms something that AGW supporters either ignore or modify to suit themselves…the scientific method.

Mailman

Good letter, the good lord (hehe:) sounds like a man of reason and principle…and because of that I expect catastrophiliacs will start attacking him personally in three, two, one….
Mailman

Pittzer

Simple. Brilliant.

Jud

The pathologising of dissent is a common step in any authoritarian movement.

Succinctly put, Lord Leach. This is precisely the type of thing that needs to be drummed into what has become a klatsch of immature, snivelling, holier-than-thou, sneering jabberwocky-mongers who think that the smear is an appropriate means of scientific discourse. Much easier to dismiss a dirty denier than to shore up the crumbling “science” they so snidely espouse.
Excellent!

Rob

The term climate “denier” is a deliberate attempt at hijacking the historical relevance of the holocaust in order to prevent scientific debate.
Scientists and journalists that use the term should hang their heads in shame.

jonathan watson

Pleasant informative letter on its way to the uk editor Thursday as suggested,
regards

Anthony- I was looking back through Herman E Daly’s and John B Cobb jr’s book for the common good: redirecting the economy toward community, the environment. and a sustainable future. That’s where my comments on ecological humanism yesterday came from.
I think that book is extraordinarily pertinent to understanding the use of a term like “denier” and the anger that the scientific facts are now betraying the true dominance of the social and behavioural sciences in this agenda. They cannot come out directly and say “the economy must be subordinated to our social goals and desire for political power.” But that is always the essence. That’s why the debate must be shut down. It is entirely too close to unmasking the reality before it’s too late. As with education, irreversible change was supposed to be firmly in place before anyone with power and an ability to communicate grasped the essence and started screaming it from the mountain tops. As you have been doing so ably.
A passage from the intro to for a common good is pertinent to all of this scheming while avoiding detection. It quotes from a John C Raines: “That the social is primary in regard to the human has become by now less a claim than a taken-for-granted starting point in most American sociology and anthropology. But it is a starting point that has little penetrated American political and economic thought.”
Denier is better than acknowledging the truth that sociology and anthropology and other social science theories created with a collectivist political purpose are being treated as primary in creating public policy. That sounds bad and gets at the basis for the legitimacy of the public policy in the first place. Ad hominem attacks change the focus of scrutiny away from the ridiculous assertions like the Anthropocene.

Reblogged this on Nuclear Dawn Help and commented:
The attacks continue as pro-climate change advocates seek to label skeptics in a derogatory manner.

Taphonomic

After looking at this article, it seems like they could substitute the terms “THE ENLIGHTENED” and “The Heretics”, for “Believers” and “Deniers”. Let the Inquisition begin (cue Monty Python: “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”).
Also, I note that the hyperlinks to citations do not link to any reference information for me and no bibliography is provided. This makes it rather difficult to see what reference was cited as providing the approach: “Next, adapting an approach used previously to investigate the social effects of industrialization [ref30]” or as providing suposedly indisputable information related to climate change: “experiences attributable to climate change such as flooding [ref29]”.
Psycho-babble, mumbo-jumbo, circular-reasoning pseudo-science attempting to prove their assumptions without testing their assumptions while masquerading as science. But that’s just my opinion.

My letters have already gone out, to both Nature and the authors of the “study.” I’d encourage others to do the same. Let’s give them some real volume feedback.
Jo Nova has done a brilliant email to the editor. See http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/nature-and-that-problem-of-defining-homo-sapiens-denier-is-it-english-or-newspeak/
There was a time when people could write a letter to a newspaper and refer to black people as niggers, and the letters were published too. If objected to, the disingenuious argument was the that the word merely referred to their skin colour. Of course, all the adults knew exactly the emotional payload of that word. Eventually, the penny dropped with the newspapers and letters using that word no longer appeared on the letters page.
Let’s stop the thin edge of the wedge right now.
Pointman

John Peter

I wonder when our UK Chancellor of the Exchequer,The Honourable Member of Parliament Mr George Osborne will be classified as a “denier” as well if this piece by Benedict Brogan has any “wind” behind it “The wind of change will give Tories something to cheer
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100166505/the-wind-of-change-will-give-tories-something-to-cheer/
“The Chancellor will shortly give them just that. In a few weeks, as part of the Energy Bill, ministers will announce a reduction of up to a quarter in the value of Renewable Obligation Certificates – or “Rocs”. Yes, I realise that’s hardly a sentence to set the pulse racing. But if one considers that Rocs are the means by which the taxpayer subsidises the wind farm industry, and that the Chancellor proposes to slash that giveaway by 25 per cent, then translated into plain English it means this: onshore wind farms will be killed stone dead.”
Worth a read and good news indeed if there is something behind this opinion piece. The halting of the spread of wind farms cannot come quickly enough. I wonder what the Germans are going to do now that they are about to shell out Euro 750 billion to Spain and Italy. Surely they will need to restart their nuclear power stations again as they will need to keep industry’s wheels spinning to make up for that shelling out and that is just the beginning.

D. J. Hawkins

Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.

Have you not had your coffee yet, or did you just glide over the second paragraph of the post?

Jenn Oates

I just went on a bit of a rant with my summer school biology students regarding some shoddy work, reminding them that adults unable or unwilling to look at data analytically will fall for any old scam that comes their way because THEY WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE.
I’d like to say that it is the first time I’ve had to rant thusly, but it is far from the first time, not even this week. Sigh…

Ed Barbar

Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be labelled a “Believer.” I know, because there is a meme running around the “Believers” that people who do not “Believe” are akin to religious nuts, flat earthers, or those who “deny” evolution (I don’t “deny” it, but the way “deny” is used here I find offensive, something arrogant about “We are right, and you are wrong.”).
Which I find quite ironic. Real skeptics have not cut down the range of possible futures as have believers. We are open to being convinced, but a few things might help. Like models that predict the actual change in temperature. Like completely open data and methods.
These Believers do seem like some kind of nut jobs, as I think about it. “The end of the world is near, so say the monks,” but the monks won’t translate the book into a language you can read (i.e., publish results).

In return for “Denier” I now call CAGW fanatics “Climate Jihadis”. Feel free to borrow the term should it suit. Certainly, they seem to be as dangerous if not more so than the Islamic version. Both are as nuts as each other – maybe they need introducing?

Phil C

did you just glide over the second paragraph of the post?
No, it just is incredibly vague and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean when put next to the IPCC report. Science works at a much greater level of detail.

Kev-in-Uk

Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
.”is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.” ..who is making such a rash interpretation? let me guess, it will be the warmist believers! – those who also rashly interpret data (or ignore/adjust it to suit)! LOL

Donald Mitchell

I think that Denier has a very appropriate place in the discussion of climate change with possible anthropogenic contributions. I believe that the most appropriate place for that maligned word is in the phrase “Data Deniers”. There is nothing more detestable than a Data Denier that either:
1. Denies any obligation to show the data which he claims form the basis of his work,
2. Denies any obligation to consider data which might cast doubt upon his work, or
3. Denies the quality of the original data by changing it so that it is more supportive of his work.
Of course the term Believer should only be applied to those who hold to their beliefs and are not interested in anything which might challenge it.
Donald K. Mitchell

I prefer the term Plausible Denier.

There is no greenhouse effect at all, of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. This post is just continuing “lukewarmer” propaganda, which is just as obnoxious as alarmist propaganda; I deny both, and I label you all incompetent in the face of clear and definitive physical evidence (my Venus/Earth comparison) that will have to be faced by everyone, if the incompetent climate consensus is to be corrected and real knowledge can advance. There is no “good” side vs. “bad” side in the climate debate, if you define it as greenhouse effect (GHE) alarmist believers vs. GHE lukewarm believers. There is no real difference in the incompetence shown by both groups, to a competent physicist.

Robin says: June 20, 2012 at 9:07 am

[…]
They cannot come out directly and say “the economy must be subordinated to our social goals and desire for political power.” But that is always the essence. That’s why the debate must be shut down. […]

Setting aside the fact that these days the UN seems to be generating (and/or “inspiring”) a plethora of papers, placards and polemics in which the subordination of the economy [as we currently know it!] is being advocated increasingly openly, viz the creepy “Future We Want” and its derivatives …
This would also go some way towards explaining something I’ve never really understood: If, as the IPCC claimed in 2007, the human generated CO2 -> CAGW “link” is so “certain”, why shroud it in the fog of “greenhouse gases”? And, at that point, why didn’t the UNEP simply say, “Thank you very much, IPCC scientists. You’ve done a wonderful job, so now you can go home!”?
Think of all the $ expended in the name of “climate change research” (and/or facsimiles thereof) – not to mention “carbon trading” – over the last six years that could have been far better spent on ameliorating real problems in the world!
I’ve never really subscribed to the “conspiracy” theory of history, but I’m finding it increasingly difficult not to consider that perhaps the “climate wars” have been fostered – if not actively permitted to fester – as a diversion, so that reasonable people with enquiring minds would be less inclined to say, “Hang on a minute …what’s this Agenda 21 all about, anyway?!”
Methinks that perhaps the “vision” of Strong and Brundtlandt – and their like-minded cronies, acolytes and lesser-lights – did not include (or take into account!) the power and reach of the Internet twenty years down the road.

John Blake

If you would know the subtext informing such such “Denier” pejoratives we suggest referencing Pentti Linkola, whose final solution is to exterminate 99% of the human race by chemical-bacteriological-nuclear means employed by a totalitarian global super-State. But characterizing this existential villain for what he is will occasion moderators’ shocked remonstrances.

n.n

The evidence suggests that the “global warming” agenda is actually a punitive redistribution scheme. Still, as the funds are not kept by the world’s poorest, I have to wonder who, exactly, is profiting from the so-called “consensus.”

D. J. Hawkins

Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 10:04 am
did you just glide over the second paragraph of the post?
No, it just is incredibly vague and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean when put next to the IPCC report. Science works at a much greater level of detail.

You mean like the incredibly detailed and precise predictions/forecasts/prognostications/wishful thinking/blind hope contained in the IPCC documents? ROTFLMAO!! (Sorry, couldn’t help myself.) Surely you did not intend the above juxtaposition?

Dearest people. I believe it is time recognize a couple of dynamics which one has replaced another.
For the past few years, skeptics have been comparatively very well restrained in use of rhetorical tools, such as marginalizing your opponent. And, it was right that we did. (My late night beer induced rants are acknowledged 😉 ) When in a factual or scientific debate, calm assertion and re-assertions of proper facts and scientific methods are essential in winning such discussions. The use of pejoratives in such discussions are a tell to the weakness of your opponents arguments.
But, that’s in a proper debate and scientific discussion. Over the last few years, skeptics have patiently hammered away at the alarmists. And, guess what?! We won! Over the course of a few years, any objective looks at the facts demonstrates the certitude expressed by the alarmists was entirely overstated. The dire predictions that the end was near and extreme catastrophic events lurk just around the corner is now show to also be overstated.
It has also been demonstrated, to the point of without question, that some of their posits were based on nothing but fantasies by the alleged scientists. We’ve demonstrated their questions data altering techniques as well. If GISS continues to employ their algorithm they will have moved the LIA to the 1930s! In 8 years, we’ll be on HadCrut v 8! Sea levels? We didn’t like what Envisat said so, alter away and then pull the plug! Did anyone notice that Jason II had a Dec/Jan rise of 4mm? Through the duration of our spring? Some of the alarmists themselves have demonstrated that they are of very low character with no compunction about violating laws.
My whole point is, this part is over. We wished we could get in a civil discussion with them, but, again, this has shown to be entirely impossible. But, as I stated, we are no longer in a factual debate with the alarmists. We’re in a propaganda war. I know this will be distasteful for many, but, this is where we’re at. And, the use of marginalizing pejoratives are very effective PR tools. The alarmists will not refrain from their use. They can’t. It’s all they’ve got.
The skeptical camp needs to recognize we are now fighting in entirely different terrain. We’re going to have to take the gloves off or, we’ll get buried.
I’ll end with an example of what I’m talking about. Right after Bush signed the bank bailout, a group of people got together and formed a loose coalition. They wanted less spending and a smaller government. They became known as the TEA party. The demographics of these people are mostly older (50ish and up) white professionals and career workers. Now, whether you agree with a smaller government or a larger government, more or less spending, it can hardly be stated that either position is extreme or fringe. Most would consider this to be in a legitimate arena of debate and discussion. The TEA party is now seen as an extreme right organization. Why? Because they were characterized in this manner. They were, in many ways, marginalized in the same manner this people are attempting to marginalize skeptics.
Time to tack in a different direction.
James

DesertYote

Phil C
June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
###
Those who are skeptical of this whole CAGW theory, have made pretty clear the points that they believe, many many times. You seem to be asking for something else. You seem to want a compromise and have a public statement broadcasted loudly that we agree that there is science in the IPCC.
How come its always the ones, like you, who want to destroy civilization that want compromise? There is no common ground. Any truth from the “Team” is just an element used to construct a deceptive lie. By making the topic of discussion, the real science in the IPCC reports, two things happen. First it validates the worthiness of these propaganda pieces. Second it channels the debate into the world-view of the propagandists, and limits the accepted truth to what the propagandist have defined as truth. By looking for common ground with liars, those who search after truth loose ground.

Duster

I think that the issue comes down to “catastrophists” vs. “uniformitarianists.” or perhaps much better “Foxy Loxy and the Chicken Little ‘team'” vs. the “King’s hounds.” For those of you who have forgotten the Chicken Little story, have no children or consider old teaching stories politically incorrect, the protagonist, based upon an assumption regarding a misunderstood datum, assumed a castastrophe was in the offing and recruited a number fellow travelers to warn the King. They fell under the influence of Foxy Loxy, who saw a chance to profit. Foxy’s plans were undone by the hounds who had begun baying on his trail. The parallels are pretty clear.

Chuck Nolan

Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.
—————-
You said areas of agreement.
What about agreeing with Jo:
“All they need is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models.”
“Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence”
“deniers will also expect to see the raw data. So you’ll need to also make sure that the authors of said paper have made all the records and methods available,”
“If you can find the observations that the IPCC can’t, you could change the path of international action.”
—————-
That’s a “me too”. You want agreement? How about providing all the data and making everything accessible to everyone?
Plus you’ve got some pretty strange leaders. You’d think at least one of them would believe enough to have a small carbon footprint. But no, they want me to live in a cave.
(I’ve read the climategate emails so I believe I have a pretty good idea of why there is no agreement.)

Phil C

D. J. Hawkins says: You mean like the incredibly detailed and precise predictions/forecasts/prognostications/wishful thinking/blind hope contained in the IPCC documents?
Have you read them? Care to identify a passage in WG I that’s incorrect? And where the underlying source research is incorrect (or misquoted)?

James Ard

[SNIP: Way off topic. -REP]

Phil C

Chuck Nolan —
Interesting response. You’ve written that you’ve read the “Climategate emails” but make no mention of having read the IPCC technical reports. Let me start here: have you read WG I?

ackk!!!! This is what happens when one starts to write a comment and gets interrupted a couple of times. Sorry about the spelling and grammatical follies! . “questions”– questionable “this”— these….. sigh and more.

gnomish

philC is phishing for talking points out of Anthony to be used to subvert the message.
he’s won’t mirandize. he will propagandize.
any comments that he can get will be used against you if he can do it.
(characterization redacted)

hro001–I think history shows us that rent seeking and an attempt to assert political power to gain economic power for the politically connected class is the historic norm. So it’s not like The Murder on the Orient Express where everyone has a secret agenda and are quietly coordinating. That’s a conspiracy.
AGW/Climate Change/Radical Education Reform are simply what people who want to live at the expense of others and have them do their bidding and not have to worry someone will displace them because they provide better service or a product or have greater knowledge do IF they have access to the machinery of government. It does the coercing and the taxing and the rigging in their favor.
Which is why widespread economic prosperity and genuine innovation requires personal and economic freedom. Which has been rare in history. And limited govt-which has been rare and is becoming so again.
And they are amazingly graphic when they think they are only talking to fellow true believers. Which is why I figure out how things must relate and then go looking for actual declarations of intent. Which I then download and hard copy and put on flash drives.

D. J. Hawkins

Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 11:07 am
D. J. Hawkins says: You mean like the incredibly detailed and precise predictions/forecasts/prognostications/wishful thinking/blind hope contained in the IPCC documents?
Have you read them? Care to identify a passage in WG I that’s incorrect? And where the underlying source research is incorrect (or misquoted)?

How did we get from “detailed” and “precise” to “incorrect”? Your original reply mentioned “greater level of detail” which I take to mean that you nail down the details. If you mean 3.7 w/m2, you don’t mean something from negative to nearly double. Most of the alleged consequences have such broad ranges that nearly any result could be laid to AGW. If this is not the sense in which you intended to use “detail”, I apologize for my miscomprehension. To it’s credit, even the IPCC has aknowledged there’s a great deal we don’t know. It’s just that most of us here don’t think it’s wise to unhinge the world’s economies based on the rather nebulous nature of claimed wisdom.

Vince Causey

Phil C,
“Have you read them? Care to identify a passage in WG I that’s incorrect? And where the underlying source research is incorrect (or misquoted)?”
How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?
I would expect any probability value to be the result of statistical analysis, perhaps applying sampling techniques and deviations and other miracles of modern maths. However, as far as I can determine, there is no calculation to back this figure up at all. None! Nada! Zilch! It appears to this reader to have been plucked entirely from thin air.
Can you please show me how this figure is derived or otherwise admit that is is bogus nonsense?

more soylent green!

Anybody catch the latest issue of Popular Science magazine? It’s shameful and Warren Meyer at Forbes.com wrote an extremely well-done critique and commentary on it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/06/18/a-response-to-popular-ad-hominem-err-science-magazine-on-global-warming-skeptics/
BTW: Be sure the read the comments that follow. There is no dissuading some people.

Jimbo

Ouch!

Jo Nova
The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, so the observations they deny must be written up many times in the peer review literature, right? After five years of study I am still not sure which instrument has made these key observations. Do deniers deny weather balloon results, or satellite data, or ice cores?
When you find this paper and the measurements, it will convince many of the key denier leaders. (But being the exacting personality type that they are, deniers will also expect to see the raw data.

Phil C

D. J. Hawkins says:How did we get from “detailed” and “precise” to “incorrect”? Your original reply mentioned “greater level of detail” which I take to mean that you nail down the details. If you mean 3.7 w/m2, you don’t mean something from negative to nearly double. Most of the alleged consequences have such broad ranges that nearly any result could be laid to AGW. If this is not the sense in which you intended to use “detail”, I apologize for my miscomprehension. To it’s credit, even the IPCC has aknowledged there’s a great deal we don’t know. It’s just that most of us here don’t think it’s wise to unhinge the world’s economies based on the rather nebulous nature of claimed wisdom.
The way you write this makes me think that you have read the IPCC WG I report. Is that a correct assumption?
As to your concern about “unhinge the world’s economies,” that’s clearly out of the purview of WG I. Would you agree?

more soylent green!

Phil C says:
June 20, 2012 at 8:49 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you start publicly identifying places of scientific agreement with the IPCC WG I report, it will go a long way towards silencing the use of the “D” word. As of right now, the absence of any mentions of agreement is interpreted as a rejection of the entire body of those scientific findings.

If you would just plainly state what we are supposed to be denying, that would go a long ways.
I agree the earth has warmed. I agree that human activities have something to do with (deforestation and UHIE are very good examples).
I deny that 2+2=5.

Ed Barbar

Phil C:
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but here is my take. I was introduced to “Global Warming” by Al Gore. I was told that if I didn’t believe, the seas will rise, pestilence and plague will rule the earth, war will break out, and millions will die. All I need to do to prevent all this is to buy exceedingly expensive technology, and cede large parts of my freedom to government.
So I don’t care about the science, really. I’m just a guy wondering what’s going on with this stuff. So I have educated myself. My point of curiosity has been, are the guys trying to make me believe, because that’s all I can do, credible enough that I agree with the drastic actions they propose, that will have an enormous effect on my life, and my kid’s life.
In other words, I want to understand the main conclusions. These include the reconstructions, because they have been used to influence policy makers, though as I understand it, they do not add to the all important climate sensitivity debate. I understand enough to get a sense of the criticisms of PCA misuse in Mann, and understand enough of the “Selection Fallacy” to convince myself more needs to be understood before the reconstructions are credible.
I read about the important efforts of Anthony Watts to purify the detection of the signal. I listen to Richard Muller, whom I trust, even though he may be deemed a colorful character, and wonder what could be done. I question why the models are not tracking observations. Because in the end, what I care about is whether or not the government is going to come in and take over another huge part of the economy, and enslave my kids a bit more.
I don’t care about the science much. Sure, some of it is interesting, but there are lots of interesting things to learn about, such as quantum theory, evolution, the study of culture since the renaissance, etc.
In other words, I’m reacting to a bunch of people invading my space, and I want to understand if it is warranted. So far, I say “No.” I might change my mind. When I see things like refusal to admit to the selection fallacy, or use of questionable data like Yamal, not use good sites like Law Dome, or use it in a truncated form, upside down Tiljander, I question the credibility. When I read climate gate emails, and it’s clear there is a team, and an agenda, I question the motivations. When the climate scientists claim it is doomsday, but refuse to release data and methods because they might get “scooped,” I question their own belief in their views. Being scooped is a small price to pay for saving humanity. When models depart from the measurements, and the models don’t have error bars, I wonder how good the models are.
I wonder why, until a few years ago, if this threat were so severe, that nuclear didn’t show up on everyone’s list as an option. I wonder why “Electric Cars” are being pushed so hard, when obviously it isn’t going to take 10 years to convert to an electric fleet. Forget about expensive battery technology, the grid would have to be rewired.
I don’t really care there is “good Climate science” going on. There is “good science” going on all over the world. What I care about is what I now see as premature, reckless conclusions on the part of some climate scientists. I don’t care for the apparent alignment of science and liberal policy pushing for more state control. So in that, I care only about the main conclusions, and whether they are credible. Are the reconstructions credible (No, in my view), are the models credible (no, in my view), are catastrophic climate sensitivity numbers credible (no, in my view). This does not mean I know climate sensitivity could not lead to catastrophic global warming, only that it hasn’t been proven. Only that the “Team” seems to have decided prematurely, recklessly, and for what seem to be personal ego goals, to attempt to force me to agree with them, when I don’t think they know, or believe, themselves (for instance Al Gore buying beach front property AFTER his twenty feet sea rise claims).
It’s like the 9/11 attacks that invaded my space. I don’t care about the middle east, or the Muslim religion, though there are many who do, and I’m not saying the issues in that region aren’t worthy. I simply don’t want to have to spend my time being concerned about it and learning about it, but I have to since events in the middle east are having a huge impact on freedoms in America, as well as the economic future of America.
So sorry. In my view, the onus of proof is on those who would change my, and every person’s life on the planet, due to their beliefs. The “good science” going on is completely irrelevant to the larger issue. There is a binary decision that has to be made, which is “Do we need to make these catastrophic changes or not.” It isn’t about finding common ground.
The efforts of skeptics should lead to purified scientific results. That these efforts are often derided in ad-hominem ways only furthers my belief that this isn’t about science at all. A Scientist would embrace the opportunity to be clear in their results, but the exact opposite is going on from the team, who would destroy data rather than let it out for FOIA requests.
In other words, the Monks of climate science want you to believe the word. But they don’t want you to read the book for yourself. These monks are not scientists.

How long will it be before Lord Leach is accused of not being a real “Lord”?

Phil C

Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?
Refresh my memory, where exactly does it say that in the report? It sounds familiar, but my search of the document doesn’t it.

P. Solar

>>
I don’t “deny” it, but the way “deny” is used here I find offensive, something arrogant about “We are right, and you are wrong.”).
>>
Apart from the holocaust slur, which is horrendously trivialises a horrifying event for short-term political effect, the other implication of this term is that if you don’t agree with their eco propaganda you are “in denial” about the problem, in the true psychological meaning of the phrase. (As I recall it this was the original way in which if was used, though the genocide slur is real enough).
So what are they saying? If you don’t agree with me you are mentally ill. You need drugs and treatment: off to the goulag. Maybe daily injections of sulphur will help you get your mind right.
Now that may have got a fair amount of traction in Stalin’s Russia but I wonder if these soft-bellied, well meaning, middle class liberals realise where this kind of logic leads them.
Ironically, it is now those pushing AGW who are clearly unable to deal with the fact that the models were wrong. What appeared to make sense in the late 90’s just did not happen.
Now all attempts and means, including scientific fraud, or even literal wire fraud are acceptable as ways to maintain the myth and pretend nothing has been discovered in last 30 years of climate change and monitoring.
Who is in denial ?

P. Solar

BTW, not disrespect to his lordship but Jo Nova’s makes the point far more forcefully, a very powerfully made point. Kudos , Jo.

Phil C

more soylent green! says:
If you would just plainly state what we are supposed to be denying, that would go a long ways.
WG I

P. Solar

Vince Causey says:How about the passage that states that the 20th Century warming is very (90% probability) likely to be caused by human GHG emissions?
Which “passage” was that Vince?
I think you will find that the IPCC’s AR4 claimed that “most ” (defined as more than 50%) of the warming was “probably” due to anthropogenic causes NOT AND I UNDERLINE NOT due to human GHGs alone. They spent a lot of time and huge amount of our money explaining what other effects they took into account.
If you want to quote the IPCC , you should at least read what they published rather than regurgitating some inaccurate paraphrasing you got from DeSmegBlog of your local newspaper.
Questionable as some of AR4 is and fact that they based that conclusion on models that have totally failed, you clearly have not even read one word of the “passage” you pretend to be citing.
How about you read the relevant “passage” and post back with a direct quote?

Phil C

Ed Barbar says
I don’t care about the science, really. I’m just a guy wondering what’s going on with this stuff. So I have educated myself.
Unfortunately, it is all about science, and if you are going to educate yourself, you have to do it with science. And that requires reading what the scientists who do the research are writing. Al Gore is not a scientist. If you don’t want to read him, that’s fine. But don’t dismiss the science because of problems with the messenger. In other words, don’t link science and politics. Science will stand on its own merits. Politics has nothing to do with it. Others here will pounce on me for writing that, but that’s the reason they get labeled with the dreaded “D” word.