Climate Consensus? Nonsense!

by E. Calvin Beisner

July 16, 2014–So, someone privately messaged us saying her friend had posted this article, and she (who messaged us) wondered how we’d respond.

Okay, we give up. We’ll never persuade people like Slate.com’s Phil Plait. Not if this article, and this and this typify his thought processes. His failure to dig a little deeper, as any good journalist should (which suggests how few good journalists there are out there!), indicates a mind closed to evidence.

But for those of you who aren’t closed to evidence, how do we respond?

Plait’s most recent—the first one linked above—claims, “… deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals.” Well, probably that’s true. Non-existent people don’t tend to publish anywhere at all–not even on blogs. And so far as I know, there are no climate change deniers. There are those who deny (1) dangerous (2) anthropogenic climate change (3) to which the only rational response is drastic reduction in CO2 emissions even if achieving it costs trillions of dollars and perpetuates poverty in the developing world. (That combination is often called CAGW–catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming.) But climate change deniers? I know of none–unless, of course, one counts those who think climate never changes naturally but only in response to human influence.

But do people who deny CAGW “essentially never publish in legitimate journals”? On the contrary, let’s take just ONE example of such a person, Cornwall Alliance Senior Fellow Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist in climatology at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and U.S. Science Team Leader on the Advanced Microwave Remote Sensing program aboard NASA’s Aqua satellites–the only source of uncontaminated, 24/7/365, truly global atmospheric temperature data for the past 35 years.

Roy alone has authored, or co-authored, approximately 30 climate-related peer-reviewed journal papers since 1990 (and at a steady pace, no slow-down in recent years)–and that doesn’t count his many others that are weather- or satellite remote sensing-related. You–hey, even Plait–can see the list here. (For a list of 69 peer-reviewed papers by other authors published before 2007 that challenged various aspects of CAGW, click here. I recall a similar, much larger list that’s more recent, but this is more than sufficient to show that Plait either lied or was ignorant of the truth.)

Next, Plait cites a blog post at that famously objective site DeSmogBlog by James Lawrence Powell claiming that of 13,950 articles published from 1991 through 2012, only 24 “reject global warming.” Powell defined his judgment this way: “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.”

Well, frankly, I do know a handful of scientists (tied to the group Principia Scientific International,) who, on thermodynamics grounds, are questioning the basic theory of global warming, but they are a tiny minority among those who deny or question CAGW. I find their arguments intriguing but, so far, not persuasive.

But Powell has stacked the deck. You have to actually “clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or … that some other process better explains the observed warming” to be counted as “reject[ing] man-made global warming.” And if your article has “found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt,” Powell doesn’t count you as among those “reject[ing] man-made global warming.” But he offers no explanation as to what he means by “discrepancy,” “minor flaw,” “reason for doubt.” Those are highly subjective terms. And if your article discusses “methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects,” Powell counts you automatically as “implicitly accept[ing] human-caused global warming”–indeed, he thinks such is “obvious from the title alone.”

Hmmm. So if I think a natural climate cycle is bringing us into an unusually (but not unnaturally) warm period to which we’ll need to adapt in various ways, I’m counted as accepting “man-made global warming” not because I’ve said so but because anyone who writes about adaptation implicitly accepts it. Wow! Pretty difficult to swim outside that net!

Plait then cites an earlier blog post by himself that in turn cites the famous–or infamous–study by Cook, Nucitelli, et al. that concluded that 97.1% of all climate scientists agree that “global warming is happening and we are the cause.”

But that study was fatally flawed, as demonstrated by Cornwall Alliance Senior Fellow Dr. David Legates (Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware) et al. in their article “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change,” published in the journal SCIENCE & EDUCATION. They found that Cook et al.’s methodology turned things upside down. Here’s an excerpt from a post about it that summarizes, simply and quickly, the findings of Legates et al. when they re-examined the data behind Cook et al.’s paper. Legates et al.’s paper …reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.

Dr Legates said:

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”

For a very clear and compelling explanation, see Christopher Monckton’s discussion of it in this video beginning 48 minutes and 35 seconds along. (Monckton’s whole presentation–which begins at 31:50–is informative and demonstrates how the other side consistently misrepresents CAGW skeptics, saying we deny all kinds of things that in fact we affirm.)

But the most fundamental point to make of all this is something Willie Soon, “an astrophysicist and geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics” (Wikipedia’s quick bio) and one of the authors of Legates et al., said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.”

The fact is that CAGW alarmists constantly appeal to consensus not because it’s real or even would be scientifically significant if it were (see lots of critiques of the idea here). but because they’re running scared. Observational science is torpedoing the modeling science on which they depend. None of the models predicted the cessation (whether short-term or long-term) of warming in 1997 (leaving us with no warming for at least the last 17 years and 10 months); all call for far more warming from 1980 to the present than has actually happened. That means the models are wrong, and CO2’s warming effect is considerably less than CAGW theory requires, which is why many climatologists and atmospheric scientists around the world are reassessing “climate sensitivity” (how much earth’s atmosphere will warm in response to doubled CO2 concentration, after all feedbacks are accounted for) and reaching much lower estimates than the alarmists (such as the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have asserted.


 

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

You have to fight fire with fire and tell plait what he is to his face. He is what we brits call a f******. He has apparently some qualification in astronomy i believe. Well astronomy is for the carl sagan’s of this world. Physics and reality are for the feynmans. They call us deniers we call them f***** or better still arts students. Empirical data will win out in the end. It really is what you americans call a slam-dunk.

Danley Wolfe

consensus? Nonsensus!

pouncer

Is it the consensus that the world is warming? Or is there a 97% consensus among scientists that the risk of warming is greater than, (and the costs of dealing with it less than) othre risks such as, for example, astronomically-origined catatastrophe — comet strike?
Does Platt think comet strike is NOT a risk? Less a risk than the risk of climate change? Were I to conduct a poll, or survey the literature, among other practictioners of other fields, would ALL or nearly all those participating identify a single greatest risk?
I doubt that; and I don’t have to reach doubts about climate change itself to doubt the significance of the presumed consensus. What we see is that those who have chosen to devote their lives to one problem are in agreement that that problem is a serious problem. Almost tautological.

William Sears

Hard to believe that this is the same guy.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFRbGjUtJk
Maybe his advice only applies to the hoi polloi.

Kozlowski

“E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.”
A well written and reasoned article from a person and organization that represents irrationality itself.
Strange.

Phil Plait has associations with larger groups of “skeptics” but not “climate change skeptics” as such, whom he would equate, I expect, with creationists and anti-vaccination believers. The amateur skeptical groups are fascinating although they tend to focus on “debunking” tarot card readers, big foot and the Lochness Monster, and ghosts and goblins. A disproportionate number of them seem to be from ex religious fundamentalist backgrounds, but then somewhat ironically adopt (by way of compensation?), rather fundamentalist perspectives on science.
But even here it is not easy to categorize the Phil Plaits of the world. Their “bible” is a list of logical fallacies that are meant to be avoided but they seem to have no capacity to apply these rules to their own arguments. As soon as they convince themselves that ‘x’ must be true, their skeptical toolkit goes out the window. Many would have no problem being skeptical of routinely published but poorly designed medical studies, or macro economic theories, or psychological definitions. However they would not see themselves as “medicine deniers” or “economics deniers”. Rather, their fundamentalism seems these days to be focused on all claims ecological, which can never be questioned, even though ecology as a science remains in its infancy.

John Boles

I bet Plait drives a car, heats/cools his home, uses electricity, and so on, so he must be in DENIAL!

Bruce Cobb

Powell and Plait are particularly odious and slimy climate liars. To them, lying is an art form.

“Hmmm. So if I think a natural climate cycle is bringing us into an unusually (but not unnaturally) warm period to which we’ll need to adapt in various ways, I’m counted as accepting “man-made global warming” not because I’ve said so but because anyone who writes about adaptation implicitly accepts it. Wow! Pretty difficult to swim outside that net!”
I would disagree with the above quote. If it said: Hmmm. So if I think a natural climate cycle is bringing us into an warm period to which we’ll need to adapt in various ways, I’m counted as accepting “man-made global warming” not because I’ve said so but because anyone who writes about adaptation implicitly accepts it. Wow! Pretty difficult to swim outside that net! I do not see any evidence that what is happening today is any different from what happened during the Minoan warm period, Roman warm period or the Medieval warm period. I would like to see evidence that the long term (last 8,000 years) trend is not cooling.

put 10 experts in a room and you will have 20 different opinions.
what specifically is the consensus? aren’t we actually talking about a consensus of belief? that some people believe AGW to be true, and others believe AGW isn’t true. How is this any different than catholics and protestants for example, fighting over their religious beliefs?

clipe

Kozlowski says:
July 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm

“E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.”
A well written and reasoned article from a person and organization that represents irrationality itself.
Strange.

Creation and Creationism are not the same thing if that’s what you’re hinting at.
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/

inMAGICn

ferberple
Testability

rogerknights

“… deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals.”

legitimi non carborundum!

philincalifornia

“But climate change deniers? I know of none–unless, of course, one counts those who think climate never changes naturally but only in response to human influence.”
Michael Mann

rogerknights

“… deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals.”

But see Solomon’s book, The Deniers, whose contrarians were all published stars. And see the many papers that undermine, at least obliquely, consensus positions, but whose authors decline to be called skeptics. (That includes many of the notables in Solomon’s book.)
I think the reason skeptics have to vent elsewhere is mostly because legit journals don’t see their role as providing a forum for debate and critique–about anything. They seem to want to publish findings. Critiques are rare and usually based on new findings.
It’s understandable that printed journals wouldn’t be suitable for extended debates. What’s needed are more formally acknowledged online debate-sites like Climate Dialog and the new one that J. curry is enthusiastic about.

Yirgach

I thank you for your viewpoint.
However, you have contributed NOTHING to Science.

copernicus34

Plait is the worst kind of ‘scientist’; in that he is of the activist variety. Total discounting of any argument at all that would counter the global warming theory. Not even an ounce of credibility in my book. Its a shame really as he is a prime example of the disintegration of science in the public’s eye. He and his ilk have literally everything riding on the temperature rising. Just a silly silly man.

ShrNfr

The Feynman quote comes to mind:
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
The CAGW theory has not predicted the future using the state of the earth in the past. It’s wrong. Maybe the GCR theory is too. I suppose we will find out. But I suspect that if it does not do well, scientists will learn from it and form a new theory. There is no learning being done by these creeps except to learn that people run in crowds and have manias, and that grant whores feed on that.

Phil Plait’s idiocy explains Slate’s policy of not providing a means of commenting on Slate articles. I wonder how much he’s paid by oil companies to pretend that he’s unaware that there’s no evidence that CO2 causes warming.

John M

Kozlowski,
So if the mere mention of “creation” sets you to howling, you must get a real hoot out of this guy.

James Hansen: Our children and grandchildren; the other species on the planet; and creation.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110826/james-hansen-nasa-climate-change-scientist-keystone-xl-oil-sands-pipeline-protests-mckibben-white-house

Thurston

Dr. Beisner —
This link points back to your “Climate Consensus? Nonsense!” posting: “*Here’s* an excerpt from a post about it that summarizes, simply and quickly, the findings of Legates”. I don’t believe you intended to do that.

The link in this sentence:

Here’s an excerpt from a post about it that summarizes, simply and quickly, the findings of Legates et al.

takes you to the WUWT home page. I think it needs to be corrected?
Outstanding article!

An important claim in the original article that was not addressed in the above:
“…Climate change deniers in politics and in the media are overwhelmingly Republican…”
True, but the meaning of this completely escaped Plait! There are Republican CAGW believers and Republican skeptics. But there are no Democrat skeptics. The correct conclusion is that the LEFT is the side that has politicised the science and accepts the conclusion for political reasons. The Right judges the issue individually and individuals come to varying conclusions.

Reblogged this on Head Space and commented:
I could while away the hours, conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain.
And my head I’d be scratchin’ while
my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain.

pat

[SNIP OFF TOPIC, which seems to be a problem with you -mod]

Winston

I just read Cook’s 2013 paper:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
Paraphrasing:
Involved in the study were 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 written by 29,083 authors, published in 1980 journals which matched the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. It was found that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
8547 out of 29,083 authors (29%) were emailed an invitation to rate their own papers 1200 responses (14% response rate) were received. 2,142 papers (18% of 11,944) received self-ratings from 1189 authors (4% of 29,083). Among the self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.
———–
First, I find it amazing that over 97% of those who actually chose to state their position on AGW in their papers took the heroic stance of agreeing with the consensus (sarcasm). Second, even after being specifically asked, over 30% of the authors still refused to endorse “the consensus.”
Anyway, what exactly is the AGW “consensus”? That human generated CO2 is causing warming? Very few dispute that. However, the public perception is that 97% of climate scientists endorse the catastrophic warming view, the one most PUBLICLY proclaimed.
The figures I want to know are the percent of climate scientists who endorse the view that AGW will definitely result in CATASTROPHIC warming and the percent endorsing “the consensus” who believe that while AGW exists, the results will NOT be catastrophic?

RobTam

William Sears,

Hard to believe that this is the same guy.

People like Plait and Michael Shermer like to call themselves ‘Skeptics’ as a way to distance themselves from what they perceive as irrational belief systems, ostensibly in the name of ‘Science’. In actuality, they are no more scientific than many of those whom they like to criticize, and generally a lot more religious. It’s just that they put their faith in ‘scientism’ (as opposed to ‘science’). Scientism applauds “consensus” provided that it has a scientific veneer, and it disparages dissent from that “consensus”. Critical, and independent thought is actually strongly discouraged by these “Skeptics” if that critical thought deviates from mainstream scientific opinion.

ossqss

This is a new psychological ailment.
It is called “Observationitis” .
Consensus pronouncements, as we have viewed over the last few years, are just a symptom of denial of such.
Observationitis = When you realize your theory is flawed and the observations directly related to your theory, tell you so, and it is terribly painful!
Just sayin, they have medication for that now days 🙂
Oh the pain!

Dan Teller

I think it’s telling that the best example of a credible CAGW-denying scientist is a person who, not coincidentally, doesn’t even believe in evolution. What a joke.
REPLY: Neither did Newton or Galileo, (both highly religious men) yet nobody seems to have any trouble accepting their views – Anthony

kim

Phil Plait, consume with gusto, and your stomach will soon think your throat’s cut.
======================

July 16, 2014
E. Calvin Beisner says:
” His failure to dig a little deeper, as any good journalist should (which suggests how few good journalists there are out there!), indicates a mind closed to evidence.”
————————
Where are the bards?
Upon a time, when history began,
The record of our people’s joy and strife
Was fashioned by the talents of a man
Who wove a lyric tapestry of life.
He stood up proudly in an era rife
With hardship, sculpted history from deed,
Wielded our tribal customs as a knife,
To carve conventions each of us must heed.
What maker stands to sing our heroes now?
How have our poets let it come to pass
That their sacred obligation became
Greed for recognition so low and crass
That lyrics and lies are to them the same?
Listening to the self styled avant-garde
I wonder: What has become of the bard?

Kozlowski

“John M says:
July 16, 2014 at 5:39 pm
Kozlowski,
So if the mere mention of “creation” sets you to howling, you must get a real hoot out of this guy.
James Hansen: Our children and grandchildren; the other species on the planet; and creation.”
Rest assured I was not howling, it wasn’t a full moon 🙂
It’s not ‘creation’ per se. I googled “The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation” and came to this page:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/statement-of-faith/
I felt that a well reasoned article was compromised by the authors association.
I don’t think religion has any place in the arena of science. Just my personal opinion. Beyond that I thought it was a good article.
In particular I liked the succinctness of the first paragraph of the response. CAGWers try to paint skeptics as ‘denying science’, and the author rightly pointed out that there is nuance involved. How much, how bad, what are the real causes and to what degree. That point cannot be made enough times because the media echoes the same purposeful misunderstanding as the original article.
To be clear: I believe those who reject CAGW for religious reasons, are on par with eco-loons who think Gaia is getting revenge on us for harming the planet. They did not come to their position through reasoning. Right answer, wrong path.
I don’t know if it matters. It might.

Dan Teller says:
July 16, 2014 at 6:30 pm
I think it’s telling that the best example of a credible CAGW-denying scientist is a person who, not coincidentally, doesn’t even believe in evolution. What a joke.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I think it is telling that the worst criticism people like Dan Teller can come up with regarding Roy Spencer’s opinions on climate science is that he doesn’t believe in evolution. What a joke.
The guy designed and built instrumentation that from an orbit in space can measure the temperature accurately at various altitudes in the atmosphere. The enormity of that technical challenge cannot be expressed in words. That he achieved it suggests he has a pretty darn good understanding of atmospheric physics. Trying to direct attention away from this is a tacit admission that you have no argument to make in regard to his science.

Mark T

Plait is not a journalist. He is an astronomer by education, IIRC, and got some measure of fame by writing an obvious book about moon landing hoax “theories.” Of course, he seems to think this made him an expert in all things (though he needs to consult with Mann regarding things statistical). His ignorance of topics outside of astronomy is stunning, so it is not a surprise journalistic ethics aren’t on the list of things he actually understands.
Mark

ossqss

Dan Teller says:
July 16, 2014 at 6:30 pm
I think it’s telling that the best example of a credible CAGW-denying scientist is a person who, not coincidentally, doesn’t even believe in evolution. What a joke.
____________________________
Perhaps you could explain the linkage of evolution to climate for us.
TIA
Regards Ed

pkudude99

What gets me about Plait is that when writing about astronomy, he’s always gaga about a single discovery that “turns everything we know on its ear! Isn’t science awesome? Having to completely adjust your worldview based on new evidence…. wonderful!” But when he writes about climate science “It’s all settled, there will never be any new evidence and just shut up you denier!”
Quite the disconnect.

Gary

Phil Plait does a reasonably good job of explaining astronomical phenomena. He exhibits leftward political leanings and, as seems typical of this mindset, considers those who disagree with him to be benighted inferiors with questionable motivations. Despite advising people to treat opponents with respect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFRbGjUtJk he insists on doing just the opposite with the denier label. He’s clueless to this hypocrisy even though it’s been brought to his attention. This attitude might stem from his reveling in his status with the ComicCon and the James Randi skeptic crowds and association with the pop culture celebrities he often name-drops in his blog.

Uh Dan? Dan Teller?
I’ve got a question.
Is it possible for people who don’t believe in evolution to learn how to drive a fossil fuel powered car?

Martin

At this point in time, anyone who claim to give some information about the climate using arguments like the consensus, witch it is the first of many LIES I uncover when I looked into this question, more than 5 years ago…He is just a other patronizing propagandist.
Its easy to find that their is no consensus even without considering the quality of argumentation.

How about Habibullo Abdussamatov?

How about this for scientific scepticism? I’m of the opinion that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. Zero. It is all the sun. And water vapor. And clouds. And ocean thermal cycles. And ice and albedo. And cosmic rays. But CO2? Zip.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/analysis-solar-activity-ocean-cycles.html

How is this any different than catholics and protestants for example, fighting over their religious beliefs?
You can use evidence in a scientific debate. And testability.

joeldshore

[too stupid to print as phrased, sanitized for your protection, feel free to try again -mod]

wooble

clipe says:
July 16, 2014 at 4:57 pm
Kozlowski says:
July 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm
“E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.”
A well written and reasoned article from a person and organization that represents irrationality itself.
Strange.
Creation and Creationism are not the same thing if that’s what you’re hinting at.
——————–
From the Cornwall Alliance website:
WHAT WE BELIEVE
1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power….
There is no place in science for intelligent design. I wish they had stopped at “creation”, because invoking ID means the argument will be dismissed by most scientists.

thingadonta

How can there be a ‘consensus’ when even the alarmist scientists themselves say they don’t agree on the most important factor-climate sensitivity, which is a very good indicator of what it is all about.
I followed John Cook’s website for a while until I realised I didn’t want to chase headless chickens who operate without reference to reality, but I did find one bit of curious info relevant to the ‘consensus’.
One article a few years ago on Cook’s website was quite explicit in saying that scientists don’t agree on climate sensitivity, anywhere from 1.5-4.5 C. They even entertained the notion that it fell outside this range, both higher and lower. Everywhere one goes on the website there is an obsession with consensus dogma, except perhaps when it comes to climate sensitivity.
I got the impression that there was a disconnect here, one part of their brain is telling them there is no consensus on the most fundamental issue, whilst the rest is saying there is a ‘consensus’.
This might lead to schizophrenic breakdown, as you cant have one without the other. The only other example of this sort of disconnect I can think of is in 1984, where one had to be ‘incapable of understanding the enormity of what one is being asked to believe’ in order to believe it, that there is a ‘consensus’ when they also frankly admit there isn’t one. The IPCC says much the same thing. Everywhere in the report they make bold predictions and then say they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is. Not so much headless chickens perhaps as tail wagging the dog?, whatever is going on, it doesn’t make any sense. I predict IPCC retractions might come one day, when the body wakes up to the fact that the head, climate sensitivity, is saying something else.

rogerknights

pat says:
July 16, 2014 at 6:00 pm
[SNIP OFF TOPIC, which seems to be a problem with you -mod]

I hope Pat’s future OT posts aren’t blocked. They rarely derail threads. They’re more like a news-crawler ribbon at the bottom of a screen. They are often informative and amusing. Please make a “creative exception” for him. I bet most WUWTers appreciate them. I’ve never seen a complaint about them.

A thorough debunking of Phil Plait’s earlier claims here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2013/07/09/the-global-warming-debate-matt-ridley-responds/
Although to his credit, he doesn’t repeat the nonsense claims he made in his previous article. He manages to come up with a new set of nonsense claims instead.
Although one can within minutes debunk his latest nonsense by citing this link:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Bill Illis

How about we just change the metric to reality.
Humans have caused about 25% of the global warming that the theory said should have happened by now (maybe 33% but the jury is still out on the last 8%).
That leaves the theory 66% to 75% not correct. That makes me both, a non-denier and a non-believer.
And that is just the facts jack.

“I think it is telling that the worst criticism people like Dan Teller can come up with regarding Roy Spencer’s opinions on climate science is that he doesn’t believe in evolution. What a joke.”
My impression from reading Dr Roy Spencer’s comments on this subject is that he believes in ‘guided’ evolution, i.e., intelligent design or some flavour of it. Which is the also the position of the Roman Catholic Church. Essentially, if you happen to be a theist, this has to be your position, does it not? So if you’re going to attack Roy Spencer on that point, it seems necessary to also argue the case that only atheists can do good science.

ConfusedPhoton

People like Phil Pliat use insults and mis-thruths to obscure their poor arguments. Whether it is religious intolerance, Nazism, McCarthyism or other extremism, you start by demonising your the group of people you want to attack, dehumanising them, spread half truths about them.
It tells more about the type of person Phil Pliat is and none of it is pleasant.