The science is missing from Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth"

I am always taken aback by the McCarthyist nature of attacks made to anyone who has the temerity and audacity to question the gospels of Michael Mann, the IPCC reports and other Government backed pro-warmist reports.

And to see people here actually condoning Manns' hockey stick would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

>I am always taken aback by the McCarthyist nature of attacks made to anyone who has the temerity and audacity to question the gospels of Michael Mann, the IPCC reports and other Government backed pro-warmist reports.

Translation: "People who don't take denialist flapdoodle seriously REALLY HURT MY FEELINGS!"

>And to see people here actually condoning Manns' hockey stick would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Dead giveaway that a denialist hasn't a clue: hockey stick rage.

Mybrid Spalding:

There are actually several aspects of "earth care" (interesting name, I may *yoink* it for use in my own discussions) that lie outside of the traditional "global warming science" and would fit in your distinction of multiple agendas - biodiversity and resource depletion, for instance, and to some extent health care (consider the health impact from mining and burning coal, for instance).

The reason that it seems like there's a single agenda is because, at the moment, most of the problems we have with "earth care" are related to one particular activity (carbon emissions). For instance, biodiversity is critically threatened not just due to climate change, but also due to ocean acidification (a direct side effect of the oceans absorbing so much more CO2 than they would have been if we weren't burning fossil fuels).

Consider the following analogy. Picture a hypothetical society similar to the one we're in today, except health-wise, the vast majority of people are suffering from obesity and heart problems due to poor dietary habits. How would the "health care" system be responding to this? You'd probably hear an awful lot from doctors and medical scientists about stopping eating all the chicken-fried bacon and similar crap, and instead switching to healthier diets, because that's the single thread that ties most of the problems together. There are still other unrelated problems as to be expected with health (i.e. cancer - while still a problem in this hypothetical, its death count and toll on the rest of the system is tiny by comparison), but in this hypothetical society, the threat that these alternates pose to health is dwarfed dramatically by the ill effects of our behaviour.

In such a society, would health care not seem to have a single agenda as well?

I ask this because this is basically what we have in "earth care" right now. There are some unrelated issues in "earth care" (for instance, whaling and some types of habitat destruction - though deforestation in particular contributes to climate change!), while climate change is not only a larger problem but also makes those other problems worse.

The fact that the "earth care" scientists are speaking with such a unified voice does not necessarily mean there's a hidden agenda. It means that the threat really is that big, that pressing.

Combine this observation with your others; I'm interested in seeing your followup.

----------------

Bibes: Why aren't you talking about the hockey sticks from the rest of the players? It's not like paleoclimatology stopped in 1998.

viking troll thank you

and you might be a ?

viking troll thank you
and you might be a ?

Trolls are nothing if not arrogant.

I debunked some claims that evidently were based on Plimerâs book at [Kevin Ruddâs blog](http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/PMs_Blog/Climate_Change_Blog), and repeated the main ones at my [personal blog](http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2009/07/monty-python-climate-change-…). Since I havenât read the book, Iâm ready to be corrected but since no one has so far, I assume the person I was correcting was quoting correctly from the book.

I'd appreciate it if someone who has read the book would mosey over to [Opinionations](http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2009/07/monty-python-climate-change-…) and let me know if the comments I quoted are an accurate representation of the book. If so, it's pretty shocking; this is stuff someone has quoted to support their argument that climate change is a hoax and made a right fool of themselves.

This was some reading getting through all the comments here. I was particularly bemused with Ray. I've only relatively recently decided to further investigate AGW, however, I'm seeing a pattern with those that deny it. Namely they are generally ignorant [some moreso than others] or they are disingenuous. Some also seem to have traits in common with fundamentalist religious nutters, certainly after watching Dawkin's Enemies of Reason and Root of all Evil I saw some common characteristics.
I think AGW is a concern, it's real and contrary, contrived crap like this book does nothing but confuse the issue. Another like this has recently been published a few months ago [not sure if you've covered it, will search] called 'Air Con'.

Interesting comments Alan C,

Yes I think confusion is the aim for some people.

Global warming caused by humans is a myth dreamt up to give scientists jobs and to allow Governments(in particular the UK)to tax us to oblivion.

One thing I have never seen mentioned is that catalytic converters on cars increase the percentage of CO2 to about 15 percent as opposed to about 12to 13 percent on older cars, what idiot thought that one up? You can't have it both ways, governments are con artists full stop.

@ Bryan Lagonda:

If the catalytic converter were not there, the car would emit CO2, and much higher levels of CO and hydrocarbons. The catalytic converter oxidizes already-created CO and Hydrocarbons to CO2.

Without the converter, the CO and hydrocarbons would be emitted into the troposphere. There, they react in the presense of sunlight, in the well-known ozone-smog formation pathways, to end up finally being oxidized to CO2 This is the same CO2 that the catalytic converter would create when it oxidized the CO and hydrocarbons, just delayed a bit in its production.

The converter makes only a trivial difference in final CO2 production - the CO and hydrocarbons will oxidize to CO2 anyway, either in the exhaust system or in the atmosphere. But converters allow us to bypass the step where we create city air that is unbreathable.

I just finished reading Plimers book. In my opinion this is a great achievement that deserves a Nobel Price. Of course, he can be criticized on details. I also found a number of statements that are not quite correct, to my judgement. I have not yet checked all 2311 footnotes. But the footnotes that referred to literature that I know were correct. For a number of references Plimer, does not mention articles with an opposite view. By the way, this is not different from what IPCC does!

However, 90% of Plimers claims may be correct. If so, than we could conclude, according to IPCC-standards, that it is very likely that his message is true. An IPCC-working group could do a good job by checking all Plimers footnotes, and if he is 90% correct, acknowledge that.
I have not read all the 511 postings on this site, so I will not try to comment on any of them, with just two exceptions:

1. It seems that there are still people who believe that the hockey stick of Mann et al was correct. This is amazing, after all that has been published about this textbook example of lying with statistics. Even Mann himself knew that it was incorrect, because there were censored results â obtained by omitting certain questionably bristlecone records â that did not produce a hockey stick. He ignored these results without mentioning them. So he did not tell the whole truth. That can be said less politely: he lied deliberately. This is all proven, it has been documented in the reviewed literature, and it has been investigated by two committees (NAS and Wegman), who do not differ substantially in their conclusions. By selectively quoting one sentence from the NAS-report, again and again, Mann and his clique still try to tell us, that the NAS-committee agreed with the hockey stick idea. This is demonstrably false. At least 6 of Timâs 55 comments on this website are about the hockey stick. These can all be omitted from his list. What could this predict for the rest of the list?

2. There are still people, who believe that IPCC makes a fair and objective assessment of the literature about climate science. That is untrue! Everyone who studied original literature, the scientific assessment of the IPCC working group and the IPCC Summaries for policy makers knows that
a. IPCC ignores several relevant publications,
b. IPCC ignores uncertainties in the original publications,
c. IPCC ignores uncertainties in the chapters in the Summaries of the chapter
d. the overall Summary for Policy Makers shows even less nuances and uncertainties, and is written and published before the scientific chapters.
e. IPCC-bureaucrats change the scientific texts after the review procedure, to create agreement with the Summary for Policy Makers. This procedure has nothing to do with scientific peer review.
This can only lead to one conclusion: the IPCC is an unreliable, political organisation, that should not have the enormous impact they have at the moment.

Al Gore and the IPCC have got a Nobel Price for omitting and ignoring relevant science. I think Ian Plimer deserves a Nobel Price for supplying the missing science, even if 10% of his claims may be wrong.

Frans Dijkstra, you're a Poe, right?

Sweet...

One can only hope that Frans Dijkstra is a Poe, because it would be a sad thing indeed if someone actually believed that they were in any way speaking scientifically if they spoke as Dijkstra did.

Just one comment: "90% certain" is in no way anything like "90% correct".

In fact any scientist who was "10% incorrect", with the sort of sloppiness that Plimer exibits, would not last very long. You see, it's the "10%" [sic] that completely taints any science Plimer might have, and in normal peer-review his whole thesis would be demolished at the first draught of a manuscript.

The "90% correct" meme in Dijkstra's use of the idea is fallacious and dangerous, and it should not be tolerated - even for a Poe, because the very Poey nature of a Poe ensures that such nonsense gains legs and runs away from the author!

It seems that there are still people who believe that the hockey stick of Mann et al was correct. This is amazing

Not one-tenth as amazing as the fact that there seem to be people who think there has been no progress on temperature reconstructions since Mann published his original papers 10 years ago when they could easily check the IPCC documentation to see it cites 10 papers that don't use Mann's original statistical methods. Where have they been living the last 10 years? Under a rock?

What's a Nobel Price? Is that an award you can get for writing crap?

Frans Dijkstra,

[Here are](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/index.php?page=2) some people who have checked Plimer's footnotes. They found they donât back his claims and many of them refute the position he tries to argue.

Incidentally, on what basis did you judge Plimer's book as "a great achievement"? Great as exposing the denisphere's willingness to latch onto and cheer [fabricated data?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o…)

Your claims about Mann and IPPC are repetition of bogus claims that have been repeated and addressed Ad nauseam.

C02 lags warming by 800 years, C02 does not drive climate, why are you all still going around and round when the very myth that C02 drives climate has been scientifically shown to be just so, a myth.
The sun's out put matches climate variations almost exactly, the same cannot be said, at all, about C02.
If our world leaders like Obama were so concerned with the planet and manknid why would their (US) Navy be about to embark on a massive wepons testing drive in the pacific ocean, stating that they estimate they will be killing up to 11 million mamals over the testing period (2 million per year).
They will use DU, White and pink phosphorus, and all sorts of toxic chemical weapons, on, or near major fishing areas, above and underwater. But no C02 is bad and we people hurt the world. Do you ever stop and put the puzzle together for one moment?
It was 5 degrees warmer in our recent past and we didn't all drown now did we, life was very good for us.
This whole agenda is about total control of you and me, hence the accompanying thought crimes associated with the so called "skeptics" , yes in the EU its becoming a imprisonable offense to say its propaganda, now that's showing their true colors right there isn't it? have I got through yet, mmmnope, it would seem not again. I hope you enjoy sitting back in your arm chairs and thinking of the brave new world you are actively complicit in setting up for your grandchildren, why not leave them a note in a vault that says, I could have chopped off your hands and feet, but this will do much better.

Shorter Barry:

Global warming is a scam, Obama is Fat just like Al Gore, and here's a vague conspiracy theory.

Barry - hit man for Ian Plimer or Poe?

Discuss :-)

>C02 lags warming by 800 years, C02 does not drive climate, why are you all still going around and round when the very myth that C02 drives climate has been scientifically shown to be just so, a myth.

Checkout the PETM (55 Mya), CO2e can initiate climate change. (humans didnât not previously release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere). However, even when warming is triggered by other events, the biosphereâs release of CO2e in response drives the warming higher.

>The sun's out put matches climate variations almost exactly, the same cannot be said, at all, about C02.

[What](http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-th…) baseless [rot!](http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.sv…)

>It was 5 degrees warmer in our recent past and we didn't all drown now did we, life was very good for us.

Bull dust! Humans have never lived in a world with average temperature 5 degrees warmer. And large mammals didnât evolve until atmospheric CO2 dropped below 500ppm. A greenhouse world in one where very different species thrive.

>This whole agenda is about total control of you and me, hence the accompanying thought crimes associated with the so called "skeptics" â¦(continues bizarre rant)

Stop being such a useful idiot for the oligarchs who have already taken control of the political process. You are already being controlled. (Yes some of those with concentrated power will try and profit from the climate crisis, but they will try and profit from any opportunity).

IPPC are repetition of bogus claims that have been repeated and addressed Ad nauseam. People need to wake up to the false environmentalism that smacks of oligarchs wanting to tax the shit out of us in the name of crisis. Remember those scientists that go to get along with Al Gore get funded for sure.

No Wolfpath,

The IPCC is repetition of peer reviewed science, check and confirmed ad nauseum.

I want tax to be fair to create fair prices where we closer to the full cost of our consumption. We need a price feedback that rewards efficiency ahead of waste.

Go along to get along, that's been happening too much in our economy and political process. Sounds like you've been had by the profit machine already- catchup wolfie, you've been sold a pup.

Shorter wolfpath:

I dismiss all the evidence of man-made global warming with a vague conspiracy theory. Also, Al Gore is Fat.

Barry has pretensions to knowledge:"C02 lags warming by 800 years"

Since CO2 is shooting up, then there must have been notable warming around 1200 AD. Using the same techniques used in papers that concluded "C02 lags warming by 800 years", show this warming.

[crickets chirping]

IPPC are repetition of bogus claims that have been repeated and addressed Ad nauseam.

But not refuted.

This has been another edition of Deniers Got Nothin', brought to you as a public service by the Obvious Society.

Best,

D

I thought that graph looked familiar - thanks for jogging my memory! [My review of Plimer's book in The Times.](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6804961.ece)

Please forgive me for commenting, as I am merely a social "scientist" --- we cannot run experiments, but must fit models to rough data (sound familiar??). This thread is very useful as I wander thru Plimer's book wondering where the truth lies (pun intended). I am particularly intrigued by the criticism of Plimer (way up there) that:
"p11 No source given for figure 1 but is based on a graph in AR4WG1 Technical Summary. The massive drop in temperatures comes from using the temps for the first half of 2008 to represent all of 2008. It looks very different if you graph the actual 2008 temp, added in red below:"

In social "science", when observed reality differs form model prediction, we, ahem, usually admit the model might be in need of "adjustment." Considering the temps so far in 2009, what will next year's version of this chart look like??? And just how far must the deviation get before there is some admission that the models might be, um, off a little bit?
I stand ready to be flamed,
yours truly,
ByroniusMaximus

Byronius, the models are predicting climate, not weather. The weather for any individual year could be above or below the climate prediction which is for the average over several years. I expect that 2009 will end up close to the average for the models.

Thanks for the response, Tim. At what point does "weather" become "climate"? To the uninitiated, average weather over time IS climate --- and a series of hot summers around the turn of the century sure seemed to lend credence and urgency to the challenge of AGW. This is why graphics like the "hockey stick" or model predictions versus observed reality are so important to the policy debate. Personally, I have a hard time getting past the Plimer graphic we're discussing here, so I hope you'll indulge a couple more questions:
1. are the trendlines of the models he cites misrepresented? do the models not make temperature predictions, or are such predictions an unimportant corollary?
2. are there wide bands of uncertainty that are not shown in his graphic?
3. do you have any idea what Plimer means by his "Actual" and "reality" trendlines? (I can't find an explanation...)
4. regarding 2009, I understand you to be saying that you expect the final observation to be back up on the model trendlines --- is that correct?
5. are there any conceivable temperature observations that would cause us to think the current models are miscalibrated or incorrect in some way? if so, could you describe what they would be?
Thanks ---

At what point does "weather" become "climate"?

The standard definition is 30 years. So there's no point in getting too excited by one month or even one year.

Then the familiar "hockey stick" is irrelevant? It's just "weather," since it represents only a few years and not decades? At what point, then, can we conclude that observations have verified the models --- in 2020?

Byronius said:
> Then the familiar "hockey stick" is irrelevant? It's just
> "weather," since it represents only a few years and not decades?
> At what point, then, can we conclude that observations have
> verified the models --- in 2020?

The blade of the hockey stick starts at about 1900. We should all be so lucky as to have a few years to live.

Wow. Just heard a one hour interview of Dr. Plimer. Very interesting. As for the debate I suppose it is enjoyed most when watched from outside. If all the "know-it-alls" knew anything about social history then they would see the really funny parallels. Tar and feather unbelievers, destroy them at all costs, do not suffer their presence at any of your gatherings, exclude them from the club. So much for human evolution amongst the educated.

As for whether mankind is really "smart" enough to answer all these questions... Don't forget that back in the 70's global cooling and the population time bomb were going to combine forces and ensure the destruction of humanity.

#534 shame you're not well informed. A better analogy of climate change deniers would be to compare many of them to those who believe the moon landings were faked.

Global cooling in the 70's is an old denialist canard that you clearly fell for hook, line and sinker. As for the population bomb, well it will eventually explode. Just a matter of when.

Still looking for help on these questions about Plimer's chart on page 11(anyone??):

1. are the trendlines of the models he cites misrepresented? do the models not make temperature predictions, or are such predictions an unimportant corollary?
2. are there wide bands of uncertainty that are not shown in his graphic?
3. do you have any idea what Plimer means by his "Actual" and "reality" trendlines? (I can't find an explanation...)
4. regarding 2009, I understand you to be saying that you expect the final observation to be back up on the model trendlines --- is that correct?
5. are there any conceivable temperature observations that would cause us to think the current models are miscalibrated or incorrect in some way? if so, could you describe what they would be?

ByroniusMaximus, climate models are already validated using hindcasts, i.e. their estimations for past climatic conditions are compared against known measurements. If you're a social scientist, you should know something about validation.

Dappled Water said: Global cooling in the 70's is an old denialist canard that you clearly fell for hook, line and sinker.

Surely you jest. Back in the days when we had to run models on mainframes, using punchcards, the first versions of climate models did indeed predict that greenhouse gases would bring us (eventually) into a new ice age. Since this prediction coincided with a few years of cooling, it received quite a bit of attention. (It certainly got mine.) I kept the journal articles for awhile, but got tired of moving them around.

All history did not begin with the Worldwide Web... even if it seems that way to you.

Surely you jest. Back in the days when we had to run models on mainframes, using punchcards, the first versions of climate models did indeed predict that greenhouse gases would bring us (eventually) into a new ice age.

That's an outright lie.

"climate models are already validated using hindcasts" ?!?

ROTFLMAO. If only! What social scientists have learned the hard way, and physical scientists have known all along (or used to, anyway), is that the only validation that counts is successful prediction.

I'd be happy to sell you any number of backtested stock market models, which have been duly "validated" and are guaranteed to make you rich, rich, rich! And of course you realize (don't you?) that the mortgage models that recently failed so spectacularly had been extensively "hindtested," and to a very high degree of confidence. After all, they were built by guys with exotic PhDs (often in physical science disciplines), so you know they must be right!

So, back to the real world: very sophisticated, extensively backtested models are represented by Plimer to be making average temperature predictions --- all I want to know is (1) whether Plimer is misrepresenting the models or their predictions in some way; and (2) what (if any) real world temperature observations would be required to invalidate the models in the eyes of proponents --- ten years of missing real temps? Thirty years? A hundred years?

ByroniusMaximus

The difference is that climate models are physical, rather than statistical. Since they don't actually use the run date as a parameter, they will produce the same output for the same input regardless of when they are run. So, if you had a time machine, you could send the model back in time and use it to make a successful forecast.

are there any conceivable temperature observations that would cause us to think the current models are miscalibrated or incorrect in some way? if so, could you describe what they would be?

Certainly. Getting the transient response to a major volcanic eruption significantly wrong would be one example.

ByroniusMaximus:

> What social scientists have learned the hard way, and physical scientists have known all along (or used to, anyway), is that the only validation that counts is successful prediction.

Then how do you test your social science models, ByroniusMaximus? Do you use a time machine to see into the future in order to be sure that your models can correctly predict the future?

In fact, can you provide a citation to any of your social science research papers?

Byronius, both you and Plimer are misrepresenting the models. Plimer's figure 1 just shows the average for all the models over many runs and doesn't show the range of values they produce. The number of years it would take to invalidate the models would depend on how far the temperatures are from the models.

As far as model predictions go, Hansen's model from 1988 still looks pretty good.

Thanks, Dunc --- that helps some. Problem is, neither mortgage models or voting models need to specify a run date; one specifies the core dynamics, then inputs beginning conditions. (The voting models worked great, BTW, every single occasion we sent them back in time; the mortgage models were even better. Until... ;-) )

I'm more surprised to hear that climate models would be so deterministic ("they will produce the same output for the same input regardless of when they are run"). No stochastic variation? It seems odd that a significantly complicated model wouldn't generate some variation in result, if only because phenomena like cloud generation and distribution would have to be modeled somewhat probabilistically (or is that not the case?).

The volcanic eruption example is very helpful, as it provides a test we needn't wait another twenty years for. The way the current models work, is any event (a major eruption, a quiet period in solar output, etc) merely a perturbation by definition? What about three major eruptions in as many years --- could that shift the predicted temperature trendline, rather than just perturb it for a short period?

Thanks.

Thanks, Tim, for referring me to the 1988 forecast. This link was succinct and helpful (to me): http://logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-dont-work.html. I like visuals.

I'm not sure how I could be "misrepresenting" climate models, though --- I'm simply asking questions (unless you are referring to my comment about the cooling predictions of the 1970s, which are admittedly based on recollection -- and possibly nothing more than the notorious National Geographic issue, though I could swear there was more to it from a model perspective (i.e., more greenhouse gases --> more cloud coverage --> surface cooling, and that had been estimated)). From a rhetorical standpoint, it doesn't help the case for action that any sincere skepticism is reacted to hysterically (see above).

I cannot find any reference in Plimer's book (yet) to Hansen's 1988 forecast. Hmmm. But as Carl Sagan liked to summarize Hume, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That applies both ways.

ByroniusMaximus

ByroniusMaximus lectures us on how GCMs are wrong, wrong, wrong then promptly goes forth making it clear he has no clue as to how they work.

No stochastic variation? It seems odd that a significantly complicated model wouldn't generate some variation in result, if only because phenomena like cloud generation and distribution would have to be modeled somewhat probabilistically (or is that not the case?).

You tell us. After all, you know they're wrong, wrong wrong.

The volcanic eruption example is very helpful, as it provides a test we needn't wait another twenty years for. The way the current models work, is any event (a major eruption, a quiet period in solar output, etc) merely a perturbation by definition?

You tell us. After all, you know they're wrong, wrong, wrong.

ROTFLMAO. ... I'd be happy to sell you any number of backtested stock market models, which have been duly "validated" and are guaranteed to make you rich, rich, rich!

Also ROTFLMAO! You're going to try to shoot down models of the natural world with comparisons to models of (seldom) rational human groups' decisions? Seriously? "That test of dropping objects off buildings to calculate the velocity of gravity won't work. I tried it on my little brother, but he just kicked me and escaped."

Why do people who know statistical modeling so often think they know and understand physical modeling?

Please don't act so defensive, guys --- I'm just asking questions. (Really.) They may seem ignorant to you, but if you need to decide whether you intend to illuminate the issues and change minds --- or just insult the public and hope they go away. As I've aged, I've had the experience of finding out that dynamics I believed in passionately (and had plenty of hindtesting to support) simply were not so. At least, not in the way I thought. So I'm a bit skeptical by nature. I've also studied the history of science, which tends to reinforce such skepticism.

So, back to the substance: Tim says (at top, in list of Plimer errors): p11 No source given for figure 1 but is based on a graph in AR4WG1 Technical Summary. The massive drop in temperatures comes from using the temps for the first half of 2008 to represent all of 2008. It looks very different if you graph the actual 2008 temp, added in red below:
Then Tim shows corrected chart with smaller (but still visually noteworthy) deviation of actual from predicted.

That Tim felt it worth responding to this Plimer chart (and that he further noted he expects 2009 to be back on model prediction trendline, such as it is) suggests he takes the prediction criterion seriously. Having learnt the hard way in the past, I do too.

So: although it seems inconceivable, what if the recorded temps persist in falling below the prediction trendlines? (I ask above about perturbation vs shifts for what should be obvious reasons.)

Byronius

I asked ByroniusMaximus:

> Then how do you test your social science models, ByroniusMaximus? Do you use a time machine to see into the future in order to be sure that your models can correctly predict the future?

> In fact, can you provide a citation to any of your social science research papers?

No answers from him so far. Is it because it doesn't fall into the list of pre-packaged talking points he's provided with?

Lee, that's funny; I've often wondered why people who know physical modeling seem so sure they know and understand statistical modeling. The climate models (physical) generate predictions, right? Those predictions are tested against observations (summarized necessarily by statistical models --- to transform noisy observations into trend series). Don't the predictions need to match the observations? If (and I don't know this is the case, or isn't) we have to continually tweak the physical models so they keep up with the observations, that's cause for concern.

If we get an unpredicted 10-15 year period of relative cooling (courtesy of a quiet sun, which up until now has vehemently been denied to be playing a major role in recent climate change, at least compared to CO2 forcing, right?), it will be very difficult to convince the public that the climate change models are showing the real effects of human emissions. In the cite I mention above, Hansen's 1988 model is said to have incorporated volcanic activity, but no mention is made of modeling changes in solar activity. If now we find that we need to roll that in, too, then what's next?

[snark alert] I know, I know --- i just don't get it. That's what they said about me when I couldn't do yogic flying, or speak in tongues.

Please don't act so defensive, guys --- I'm just asking questions. (Really.) Please don't act so defensive, guys --- I'm just asking questions. (Really.)

You mean ... like this question?

Surely you jest. Back in the days when we had to run models on mainframes, using punchcards, the first versions of climate models did indeed predict that greenhouse gases would bring us (eventually) into a new ice age.

If (and I don't know this is the case, or isn't) we have to continually tweak the physical models so they keep up with the observations, that's cause for concern.

Please go away and don't come back until you've learned enough to ask intelligent questions.

You're boring.

"The climate models (physical) generate predictions, right?"
No, actually. Their output is dependent on scenarios regarding climate forcings - CO2 output, methane output, volcanic eruptions, aerosol production, insolation, and so on. The models do not attempt to predict those - they are input, not output. So the output of the model is a prediction ONLY of what will happen under a given combination of forcings.

"If (and I don't know this is the case, or isn't) we have to continually tweak the physical models so they keep up with the observations, that's cause for concern."

No, that isn't the case.
The models are continually improved - to incorporate more of the physics. The places where one can 'tweak' the model, primarily the parameterizations, are constrained by the requirement that they fall within the range of real-world observational or experimentally determined values.

There have been cases where the models and the observations did NOT match - the UAH data mismatch of several years back. It was not possible to use physically valid parameters for the models, and get model output that matched the observations. The models were not tweaked outside the physical constraints to match the observations - the mismatch was reported and people looked for what was going on. It turns out, the observations were wrong - there were math mistakes in the analysis of the observations. Fix the mistakes in data analysis, and the models matched the observations just fine. This was a serious test of the models, IMO, and the models passed it.

Hansen's early, primitive model, the results he presented to congress, has not been tweaked - and it continues to match reasonably well to observations.

Similarly, no one has been able to use physically realistic parameters and make a model match current temps, without including CO2 forcing in the model. The models are our best mathematical realization of climate theory, and no one can make a model that is physically realistic and that tells us anything but that climate sensitivity to CO21 is a serious issue.

Thanks, Lee --- your last point especially persuasive. I suspect (correct me if it's not so) that the "math mistakes in the analysis of the observations" were statistical in nature... (Is there a good summary of that mismatch, analysis and correction to which you could refer me?)

IMO, since the prediction of the primitive 1988 model comports fairly well to observations, that should be front and center in addressing / responding to public concerns about whether the models are successfully predicting global temps given the actual conditions observed (CO2 emissions, volcanoes, insolation, etc.). (So Tim, you shouldn't have bothered to correct Plimer's Figure 1 --- that only encouraged me to take it seriously; and to assume that continued observations below prediction place the models into doubt.) It would be a public service for someone intimately familiar with the models to maintain a constantly-updated chart of the model predictions (with actual conditions as historic inputs) versus observed temperatures. (If you could point me to such a thing online, it would be great. When it's that easy to illustrate to the public that the models are valid, why wouldn't someone just do it? Make a couple of grad students build it.)

Moreover, I haven't noticed anyone pounding the table to point out that if even a primitive model (presumably laced with heroic assumptions) seems to successfully predict global temperature trends, then the effects of anthropogenic CO2 are real.

The bulk of Plimer's book seems to be devoted to showing that earth's climate varies, and that nothing we are observing now is especially unusual when the appropriate time scale is considered (i.e., eons, not centuries). I take it that from the perspective of most climate scientists, all that is (to put it bluntly) utterly irrelevant --- because we know enough physics now to say that the current observations are not just noise or part of a long-term trend, but clearly the result of anthropogenic GHG emissions.

Is that right?

Thanks, Lee --- your last point especially persuasive. I suspect (correct me if it's not so) that the "math mistakes in the analysis of the observations" were statistical in nature...

No, algebraic and trigonometric.

The bulk of Plimer's book seems to be devoted to showing that earth's climate varies

Which every scientist and the vast majority of non-scientists on the planet knows.

, and that nothing we are observing now is especially unusual when the appropriate time scale is considered (i.e., eons, not centuries).

And since it was really warm and there was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere during the carboniferous, changing today's climate on a rapid timescale won't cause any significant dislocation in today's society.

Think about it. Think about trying to grow winter wheat or maize in a carboniferous swamp. Ask yourself, "how relevant is this observation".

Or go back to snowball earth. Think about trying to grow wheat or maize on a planet covered with ice and snow. Ask yourself, "how relevant is this observation".

Concerns about climate change having nothing to do with geologic timeframes. We're worried about historical timeframes. Yes, centuries (or decades), not eons.

Eventually the sun will extinguish all life on this planet. That's no reason for me to stop worrying about (say) next fall's likely swine flu epidemic or AGW.

I take it that from the perspective of most climate scientists, all that is (to put it bluntly) utterly irrelevant --- because we know enough physics now to say that the current observations are not just noise or part of a long-term trend, but clearly the result of anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Is that right?

If you meant "part of a long-term trend due to forcings other than our adding CO2 to the atmosphere" then, yes.

ByronMax drops this howler:

>*Back in the days when we had to run models on mainframes, using punchcards, the first versions of climate models did indeed predict that greenhouse gases would bring us (eventually) into a new ice age.*

Thus showing his bluster is backed up by ill informed bunk.

ByronMax the question in the 1970 was the contest beteen CO2 and SO2 and which would dominate. You'll notice that for several decade before SO2 was scrubbed that greenhouse forcing was somewhat more in balance with the aerosol cooling.

So once again you can redirect your ROTFLMAO into your closest mirror.

I don't quite understand why you think the Durking graph is misrepresenting anything, because for the 1940-1980 period (40 years) the IPCC AR4 graph shows the same thing; a decrease in temperature at a time when human CO2 is increasing. This is why during the 1970's, scientist were warning of global cooling. It should make anyone question the CO2 warming theory because it simply doesn't explain a 40 year period when the facts say the opposit.

Shorter Simple Logic:

If you ignore everything outside 1940--1980, then there's no problem with the Durkin graph. Simple logic!

Simple logic,

Why won't Plimer own up to his figure 3 being Durkin's chart if it is so valid?

BTW Durkin withdrew his chart because fabrications were exposed. Do some backgrounding.

I don't quite understand why you think the Durking graph is misrepresenting anything, because for the 1940-1980 period (40 years) the IPCC AR4 graph shows the same thing; a decrease in temperature at a time when human CO2 is increasing.

The two graphs do not "show the same thing".

The IPCC graph shows that there was a several-degree drop in the anomaly in the latter 1940s - a drop [that has been explained](http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html) - followed by a steady increase to the 1970s, after which the rate of anomaly increase itself then increases.

The fabricated Durkin/Plimer graph shows the anomaly decrease occurring over about 35 years right through to 1980. This depiction is completely untrue.

How do these two graphs "show the same thing"?

Gosh. There are certainly a lot of very angry pro-warming evangelists out there. One mention of the word "McCarthyist" or "Hockey Stick" and all hell breaks loose.

I've come across the likes of Dan L and his ilk before.

They're called Trolls and best ignored.

Let me "flapdoodle" some more (whatever that means).

I'm two thirds through Plimer's book and it merely confirms my own conclusions from a previous 7 years of research.

These are that:

1 - There is clearly wave after tidal wave of independently peer reviewed bona-fide scientific research that clearly demonstrates that CO2 is not to blame for the recent warming in the last century.

2 - There are thousands of climatologists and other "scientists" out there who agree

However, one cannot ignore the criticisms made against this book and so once through it, I will at it again to look at those leveled at the factual inaccuracies that Plimer stands accused.

And if they are justified, I will alter my view. If not, I will not.

bibes:

There is clearly wave after tidal wave of independently peer reviewed bona-fide scientific research that clearly demonstrates that CO2 is not to blame

Clear as mud.

And if they are justified, I will alter my view.

Sure you will.

bibes wrote:

[projection, lunacy and irony redacted]

Poe? Is that you, Poe?

Good effort Byronius.

You say that you are "...simply asking questions"

Even from a light skim of this site, surely you can see that this is NOT ALLOWED.

Expect insults and flack to follow soon. Trolls are out on my last post already.

bibes:

Trolls are out on my last post already.

Trolls don't realize when they're given a hint of what's wrong with what they said. e.g.

tidal wave of independently peer reviewed bona-fide scientific research

Huge amounts of what Plimer says, e.g. the things Tim points out above, are not backed up by any peer-reviewed research.

And if they are justified, I will alter my view.

Bare-faced assertions are completely worthless. Also,

Trolls are out on my last post already.

Trolls are hypocrites.

"1 - There is clearly wave after tidal wave of independently peer reviewed bona-fide scientific research that clearly demonstrates that CO2 is not to blame for the recent warming in the last century." - bibes

Do tell.

bibes (562):

However, one cannot ignore the criticisms made against this book and so once through it, I will at it again to look at those leveled at the factual inaccuracies that Plimer stands accused.

Yep, that's pretty much the only way you can read Plimer's book - by ignoring the factual inaccuracies. The "willing suspension of disbelief" really is essential to full enjoyment of a work of fiction.

Of course, you could always apply a bit of scepticism to the first reading...

The comments by Lambert about Ian Plimer's fine book is simply a case of criticism by quibble. For shame!! Plimer has made a serious and substantial statement of his understanding of the subject. It is too bad that Lambert and his ilk have not seen fit to engage the subject seriously, but rather prefer to make snide comments that are nothing more than vain puffery.

Paracelsus,

Turn your bluster towards Plimer, it is he who is [running from serious engagement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/ian_plimer_is_a_big_chicken.php).

Paracelsus (#569) is right. Lambertâs and othersâ critics of Plimer are examples of criticism by quibble: debating about lots of details without refuting Plimerâs main message, that there is much more science about climate than IPCC-advocates and alarmists want to admit.

Some answers to reactions on my 16 August posting (#512):

Martin Vermeer (#513) âFrans Dijkstra, youâr a Poe, right?â
Yes, of course my posting was some sort of Poe-intervention: doing a proposal that is considered absurd by the audience, with the purpose of showing how absurd their own beliefs are. Granting a Nobel Price for a book with perhaps 10% errors is not more absurd than giving this price for Goreâs film and for the incomplete science of the IPCC. Of course a Nobel Price should not be given for writing crap (I agree, Gaz, #516), but this price was given for Al Goreâs crap, so why couldnât Plimer be awarded in the same way? At least 90% of his book can not be considered as crap. Climate alarmists could at least listen to his arguments.

Bernard J. (#514) âit is the 10% [sic] that completely taints any science Plimer might haveâ¦â
It is true, that a mathematical proof is invalid if only one step in an argumentation is wrong. But there is no proof of global warming, there is only a lot âevidence,â which is called âoverwhelmingâ by the AGW-advocates. All this evidence together does not form a mathematical proof. For a mathematical proof there is no need for âoverwhelming evidenceâ: one proof is enough.
The existence of AGW can be likely, even if 10% of the supposed evidence is wrong. For instance: disproval of the âhockey stickâ graph does not disprove the whole AGW-idea.
On the other hand, there is no proof, that AGW does not exist, but there is a lot of evidence, that AGW is much less than alarmists propagate. Plimer provides much of such evidence, but he goes in my opinion too far when he claims, that CO2 does nothing at all.

Mark Byrne (#517) âhere are some people who have checked Plimerâs footnotes. They found they donât back his claims â¦â
I know, but I also know, that you can never trust âsome people.â You canât even trust the IPCC, as I explained in my posting.
By the way, here () is an extensive list of errors in Al Goreâs book. Which list is longer, Plimerâs errors, or Al Goreâs? On the basis of these lists, to whom of the two would you award a Price?

Chris OâNeill (#515) âIPCC documentation ⦠cites 10 papers that donât use Mannâs original statistical methods. Where have [you] been living the last 10 years?â
I hope, Chris, that you have read IPCCâs conclusion from these 10 papers! IPCC-Physical Science Basis, page 469: âThe evidence indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950-1100) were indeed warm (â¦) However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm (â¦) as those in the 20th century â¦â
This may be true, but if so, also the opposite is true: the evidence is not sufficient to support the conclusion that the 20th century is warmer than the medieval period! So Michael Mannâs endlessly repeated mantra about âunprecedented late 20th century warmthâ is not supported.
Remember, that this is the final text after editing by the IPCC-administrators. We can only guess about the original text after completion of the scientific review. Even the IPCC-administrators could not confirm the hockey stick graph in the 2007 report! Everything Plimer claims about this fraudulent episode in the history of climate science is to the point. His extensive survey of the historic evidence about warm and cold periods in the last several millennia is of great value, and should be used in the next IPCC-report.
One of the biggest problems with temperature reconstructions is the reliability of tree rings. Tree rings are not only influenced by temperatures, but also by moisture and atmospheric CO2-concentration, so they do not provide an unbiased temperature record. There is an important study by Craig Loehle (Energy & Environment 18(2007), 1049-1053) on temperature reconstruction with other proxyâs than tree rings. This paper confirms the âoverwhelmingâ historic evidence that the medieval warm period was warmer than the current period. Remember that agriculture on Greenland and wine culture in Scotland â as documented in medieval history â are nowadays impossible.

Frans,

"criticism by quibble" is that the new phrase you use when you don't what to engage with your critics. Those "quibbles' include using fabricated data, lying about the sources of his fabricated data, misrepresent authors and sources, misrepresenting AGW theory. "Quibble" sounds like either an ironic or Orwelling term.

Why do you think Plimer is refusing to backup his claims with simple references and answers to [simple questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/it_must_really_suck_to_be_one.p…)?

Surely his hasn't been caught out has he?

Frans Dijkstra:

Chris O'Neill (#515):

IPCC documentation cites 10 papers that don't use Mann's original statistical methods. Where have [you] been living the last 10 years?

I hope, Chris, that you have read IPCC's conclusion from these 10 papers!

I hoped that you had read it too but unfortunately you have missed it as we shall see below.

IPCC-Physical Science Basis, page 469: "The evidence indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950-1100) were indeed warm. However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm as those in the 20th century". This may be true, but if so, also the opposite is true

I'm sorry, but you have a lot of difficulty with basic logic. Just because there is no evidence that A is true does not mean there is no evidence that the opposite of A is true. Indeed, if you had not applied selective journalism you would have noticed that on the very same page as your quote it says:

"However, Figure 6.10 shows that the
warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 deg C
and 0.2 deg C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980."

Even the IPCC-administrators could not confirm the hockey stick graph in the 2007 report!

If you think this after reading figure 6.10 on page 467 of the report then you need your eyes tested or your brain tested.

One of the biggest problems with temperature reconstructions is the reliability of tree rings.

Temperature reconstructions have been done without tree rings and they confirm reconstructions done using tree rings, e.g. Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millenia - PNAS.

The only thing you're achieved with your silly arguments is to provide yet another example that it takes someone with defective thought processes to deny the evidence of extraordinary global warming.

Yawn...

The overpowering stench of patchouli oil pervades the site as the pro-warmists stumble out of their yurts for another session of trolling and snarking...

Anyway, look at the quotes below to see what some so called scientists (or rather under-qualified fantasists) and disgusting "Holocaust"... ooops, I mean "Climate Change" Deniers have said.....

I mean, one of them's an Indian!! Ones definitely a woman and some are American!!! What they hell would they know f'Christ's sake!!!.... They should be strung up... ALL OF THEM!!!!

Highlights of the Updated 2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

*[Quotes from Inhofe's list trimmed. Please see [Senate Minority Report on Global Warming Not Credible](Ihttp://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/ranking_members_senate_minorit…) Tim]*

Parted with £25 for the book a couple of weeks ago, thinking it would be balanced science ("global warming -the missing science"). Am now deeply regretting the expenditure on what quite clearly is an exercise in selective documentation. I saw this approach at first hand in my own scientific career (am now retired). Didn't like it then, don't like it now. It's not science - it's propaganda, no matter how well concealed with a welter of impressive-looking facts.

However there's one graph he shows on p375 (fig 50) which went unchallenged in the impressive list of faults above. It claims that only the first 20ppmv of CO2 has an appreciable warming effect - about 1.5 degrees. The next 20ppmv has only a 0.3 degree effect and it tails off rapidly thereafter. If true it would be a serious indictment of the AGW case. Any views? He can't be correct, surely?

> The next 20ppmv has only a 0.3 degree effect and it tails off rapidly thereafter. If true it would be a serious indictment of the AGW case. Any views? He can't be correct, surely?

He isn't and this work to show it incorrect was supposedly done once and for all by Gilbert Plass in 1956.

read

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Quote:

> Digital computers were now at hand for such calculations. The theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan decided it was worth taking some time away from what seemed like more important matters to grind through extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation significantly.(25)

> But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer up through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise. Assuming that emissions would continue at the current rate, he expected that human activity would raise the average global temperature "at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century."(26)

Thanks for the instant response Mark, and the handy reference.

It's curious that Plimer gives no clue as to how that bar chart was derived. There I was thinking it was some simple -or even complex- iterative physical formula, but if it's model-derived then the author has taken a liberty in presenting it as though it were unquestionable fact.

In fact the author's practice re figures, charts etc is most peculiar. At least where that chapter is concerned (the only one I've checked so far) the diagrams and their captions are stand-alone - there is no reference to them in the main text. Yet the (questionable) conclusions that the unwary reader might (be led to) infer from the charts are briefly alluded to in the text, without citing his own charts. That's a strange way for a scholar to operate. I guess he's the new breed of proselytizing academic, operating according to goodness knows what rulebook. One wonders if he allows his PhD students to keep opinion and data in separate water-tight compartments, and what the external examiners think about it...

The daft thing about Plimers complaint is that if he were right, you wouldn't get anythning by wearing a tog15 duvet over a tog3.5 one.

After all 100% of the convection is stopped by the thinnest of blankets...

Also (which is another weirdness) is that if he was right, astronomers, especially those cataloguing stars from their spectral response would have nothing to do: optical depth wouldn't work and we wouldn't be able to see the % constituents of stars, even our sun.

I would have thought we'd have noticed if that were true.

Yes, it just seemed inherently improbable. One wonders how Plimer would account for Venus's runaway global warming!

And termites have always been producing methane (well, for a few hundred million years), whereas humans have only recently been releasing fossil methane.

So it's a true statement by Plimer, but a complete non sequitur.

Posted by: Barry Brook | April 23, 2009 9:31 PM
-----
Barry, are you saying that only human sources of methane matter? If termite populations doubled, would their increased methan emissions cause climate change?

Plimer's book contained over 2,000 footnotes. I'm sure every one of them was wrong, though. We should all move to Mars, maybe the humans causing that planet's climate change can help us.

If termite populations doubled...

Matt, do you think Barry's been watching this thread for the past six months in case someone responds to his point?

Anyway, why would termite populations double? If termite populations have been roughly stable for eons, why even ask the question?

How about this: what if the population of red herrings doubled.. hang on, wait a minute....

I see the climate change inquisition is on the march again. Of course we know the sun revolves around the earth the Pope told us so. If Al Bore tells a few porkies thatâs ok then. As we are all doomed why are you getting so pisssed off by Ian Primer?

Lawrence Kenneth Toye, I see you prefer to make stuff up rather than address the details raised and discussed here.

How predictable for someone without an argument.

Having read Dr. Plimer's book, I can only agree that it appears to be less than completely scientific. However, it must also be realized that his book is NOT a scientific paper, it is a book that is aimed at the general public. Since most such books, including Al Gore's own "Earth in the Balance", begin with a conclusion, this complaint, leveled only at Dr. Plimer's book, falls short of being unbiased or honest.

However, when discussing the IPCC and their 'scientific' conclusions, we have a much greater problem. The IPCC was, from its inception, an organization created to prove anthropogenic global warming. Since all their research has striven toward that end, it must be recognized that conclusions of the IPCC are not simply 'less than scientific', they stretch into and encompass the pseudoscientific realm formerly dominated by 'Creation Science'. To deny this is to join ranks with fundamentalist Christians in believing that 'true' research should only prove what one already believes.

IPCC started their 'scientific' research with a conclusion: humans have caused global warming. The scientists/politicians involved have attempted to prove their precept to the general public by means of data manipulation, insistence that poorly-tested computer models represent "truth", 'peer-reviewed' their own reports and rubber-stamped their own conclusions, and by denigration and outright vilification of critics. Through these deceptions, the IPCC, by way of the United Nations, is attempting to create world economic policy, whereby the economies of Western nations are disrupted, at best, or destroyed in order to 'allow' developing nations to gain the advantage. Though the 'global warming/climate change' researchers share much in common with their Christian fundamentalist counterparts, the goal of IPCC, their clergy, and their acolytes, prove 'Creation Science' quite harmless by comparison.

There are at least two dismal results from the 'global warming/climate change' scandal:
1) True ecological catastrophes, such as contamination of the environment by actual poisons and the eminent collapse of the oceanic food chain, have been ignored in favor of this New Religion; and,
2) When a genuine ecological disaster looms, the public will be far less likely to take it seriously. The boy can only cry 'wolf' so many times.

Brighter people than I can add to the list of grim outcomes resulting from the 'global warming/climate change' scandal.

My God, you are dishonest. I go to your "polar bear numbers are not increasing" site and BAM! it turn out that they are increasing, BUT for a reason you think is irrelevant to the climate (i.e. We can't hunt them after the 1970s.) Fine, say that then! But the numbers are up! Not down! And it is you, not Plimer, that is lieing about that. Disagree on the reason for that fact all you want, but the numbers are up. Plimer is right about that and you are lieing about that.

WTF is up with you glorified weathermen?! I truely suspect that - like political correctness - the whole concept of Global Warning is just Marxism dresses up as science so as to provide a new reason for you to point the government's guns at a population that thinks your values suck.

Correction: The time frame should have been 450,000 rather than 100,000.

Here it is:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tm33tTS2iZc/RizPy2CJfjI/AAAAAAAAADY/A1bBqSYdg…

@374 The invitation, if I may be so bold, is this: would anybody who's so far been just quietly observing this thread like to say that they have been encouraged by now to think that Ray is on to something, and that the "skeptical" position is looking more scientific and less denialist/delusional/whatever? I wonder whether anybody thinks they've been swayed by following this thread towards the Plimer viewpoint or, simply, away from the IPCC position?

I'd like to make a comment although it isn't exactly an answer to this invitation. I've become interested in this, and I'll have to say that I consider myself a skeptic, at least in as much as I don't believe that it can be as certain as pro-AGW people would like to make out. I actually found this site when Googling the book in question after reading an op-ed in the local paper that favourably referenced it. I wanted to see what the opinions were of it and whether it would be worth reading. I've visited quite a number of blogs in the last week or so, both pro and anti AGW, and I feel compelled to say that I am not gaining much respect for either side. I realize these are blogs and they're open to anyone but the majority of the stuff on here (and other blogs) is just babyish put downs of the opposing sides posts. I am particularly tired of "bi -- IJI", he or she hasn't had one sensible thing to say but that hasn't stopped them from posting dozens of times, if I were in charge of this blog they'd be banned. As for whether I've been swayed one way or the other I'll have to say that I'm somewhat more sympathetic to Ray, but that's mostly because this is not "his" blog and so most of the rude personal attacks have been directed at him, and not really because of his arguments. On anti-AGW blogs I'm just as disgusted by their behaviour. If this is the best you can do to convince people that AGW is real I'm not surprised that skepticism appears to be growing.

End of rant.

P.S. I've decided not to bother reading the book so perhaps you have accomplished your goal.

EdT - please read our evidence and arguments, ignore the style. Or even better read the evidence we often link to, such as that which shows Plimer is lying about volcanos contribution to CO2 levels.

Besides, most of the things said to Ray or Frank ("bi - IJI" refers to "Frank Bi (Pseudonym), International Journal of Inactivism") are said to them by regulars, and one merely needs to see their behaviour on earlier threads to see that it's primarily justified. For instance, Ray was so disruptive that he justified his own thread, being banned from other threads.

That said, "The argument against Plimer's book is wrong because the commenters on this blog are meanies" is both misdirected (as the commenters on this blog aren't the people cited in the main post, nor did they write the main post) and a classical ad-hominem fallacy (addressing the accuracy of a claim based on an unrelated quality of the person putting forward the claim). Plimer has also done the same in defense of his book, though.

Brian D: As far as "ad hominem" is concerned, I did no such thing, it is you who is venturing into that territory with your "The argument against Plimer's book is wrong because the commenters on this blog are meanies" comment. I didn't say the arguments against the book were wrong because you were meanies, I didn't say they were wrong at all. I stated that I wasn't going to bother reading the book and I made that decision because it seemed to me that persuasive enough arguments were made for me to consider the science it contains to be questionable. As for the rest, you can't expect me to read every thread on the internet to discover whether or not someone "deserves" the treatment they are getting.

EdT: Indeed, you're correct. I misread your comment and apologize.

You're also correct that we can't expect you to read every thread to see if people deserve the reaction they're getting here. However, in return, until you've read a representative sample (even of just recent threads), please refrain from judging their behaviour all the same, as such judgment is necessarily underinformed.

EdT, if you just want the science without politics and peripheral issues, refer to the realclimate index and the realclimate start here page.

Ah, the smell of ignorant self-righteous hypocrisy in the morning....

Give it a few years.
Climate science will prevail.

and all you smug addled hippies will act like you always knew doomsday anthropogenic climate change was a lie.

I'm done arguing, time will win this debate.

Jim, Facts?

Or will a mangled line from a movie do to over-turn rigorous assessments and the overwhelming weight of evidence?

593 Jim,

Let me correct that for you:-

Ah, the smell of ignorant self-righteous hypocrisy in the morning....

Give it a few years. Climate science will prevail.

and all you ignorant lying wingnuts will act like you always knew anthropogenic climate change might be true but you just needed more evidence.

I'm done arguing, time will win this debate.

Dear all, this is a great topic for debate. Unfortunately backed up by corrupt leaders fishing for your votes. Australia has a lot to loose if Carbon Trading takes off. The west has a lot to gain. If no one can see the larger picture that it is always about money and the global power struggle - even if Global Warming is man made do we really trust our politicians to invest the taxes they take? If it is natural do we really trust or politicians to tell us or just keep taking our money to invest in the poorly run banks. This could be a smoke screen for us all. I don't ask for debate. I don't ask for understanding or agreement just for us all to open our eyes and ears. Don't listen to the men in charge or the scientists whose grant is dependant on them. Research and make up your own minds. Ian Plimer has some points worth listening to. The fact that we all live on a lump of rock in outer space and that he has studied this rock for 40years+ is in my opinion a good reason to listen. Quoting other peoples papers and qualifications in your debate is great, but stop point scoring, try making up your own minds and then vote the correct people in.

I think the current "Climategate" scandal is very illuminating when it comes to the topic of how much faith and trust we should put in the IPCC , govt. paid hack 'scientists' who spend so much time trying to hide their raw data, 'hide the decline' in global temps the past 4 years, and worst of all, demonize / ostrasize anyone who is a AGW skeptic no matter how much data is ammased by independant and well credentialed climate experts and scientists...who can't get a paper peer reviewed due to the blacklisting politics that has now been exposed for all the world to see.

This all indicates the science is not exactly 'settled' after all. If it were, these hacks would be forthcoming with the data and open to the true scientific method.

Clearly, the 'hockey stick' has been shown to be a fraud, as have the elimination of medieval warming periods, the never ending irrelevant "Larson Ice Shelf" break away, the complete blackout on all news such as the increase if Arctic Ice extend over the past 2 years, etc etc etc X 10 27th counter AGW data points.

I find it sad that a group of political agendizers has taken over the 'science' and the peer review process to do everything in their power to turn AGW into a political witch hunt / demonization process, as they break away entirely from true objective science.

Besides all this, even if the paid hack IPCC 'hide the decline' crowd are correct, what shall we do about it? Bankrupt Western civilization with cap and trade so that China can emit 10X more C02 than they are currently by taking the rest of the jobs left in the world? China is already the largest gross total emitter of C02 and EVEN IF Western countries made huge cutbacks of 10% per year, (plunging them into economic depression) CHina's C02 growth would more than offset that, the end result being...impoverish Western nations for NO REASON AT ALL, as total man caused C02 emissions would continue their rise. Probably faster given China's predisposition to grow their economic engine through such means as uncontrolled build out of dirty coal power plants at a 1 a week, Gigawatt pace.

And of course, the planet was warming for 10,000 years now, with sea level rise, and glacial retreat, approx. at the same pace the entire way.

You AGW religionist lemmings go ahead and jump off a cliff for no reason if you like, and BK your children's future, just don't ask the rest of us to join you, because we will not. Particularly since there is zero benefit to anyone for doing so.

So much fun reading these [i]slightly[/i] outdated columns. CRU data cited as gospel. The infamity and falsehood of the infamous and false "hockey stick" cited as [i]problems[/i].

Where is the science missing, again?

never read so much garbage from so many....wake up to your good selves.....the world will continue on its merry way regardless of all the talk,tax and tricks soon to be lumbered on this poor society by the so called well informed(not)

Peter asks:

>*Where is the science missing, again?*

Peter, you didn't follow the links. Never mind here in [an update](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php)

MikeL,

One notable absence from your post @597 was evidence. Quite a gap.

Ian Campbell, ditto.

The debate is endless and favours the AGW hypothesis.
So let's forget that and move toward solutions.
Firstly a bit of ad hom on Al Gore - to all those who have read animal farm - he's the fattest pig in this context - a narcissist and energy pig whose interest in self sacrifice is zero.
This ad hom is however highly relevant to the Australian economic position
Entirely dependent for its high standard of living on mineral exports - I would suggest that all Australian mineral exports be taxed to the eyeballs as we know that the minerals will be converrted to steel etc via largely coal fired stationsin China
Likewise the oil producing nations should have their CO2 producing commodity taxed to the eyeballs. We know that China has a tiny middle class and a huge number of poor - same as India.
These guys are not going to change their emmission habit
to save the world when most of their people will be lucky to live to 50.
So contemplate the real solution which causes real pain rather than predictably totally ineffectual emmissions trading.
Consider the following thought experment
Your child will die from a treatable disease only if 6 tons of CO2 is required to produce the drug necessary.
Under a strict CO2 control scenario your child dies.
With a liberal policy he lives.
This is the real world and not some ivory tower world most of you live in
Incidentally I have worked widely enough in Australia over the last two years to know you have destroyed the Murray Darling Basin- I have travelled through the parched land many times and I spent 4 months beside the Murray trickle.
You can't even sort that out let alone the vastly more complex issue of AGW.
So reflect upon this before you all get onto your high horses and pour invective upon any person who adopts a midly contrary view. Incidentally your bushfires recently produced a third of Australia's total annual CO2 emmissions.
For your own sakes - and I see many of you are addicted to this blog - ie you were there 4 years ago - the world will never change for you. So do yourselves a favour and think laterally - be forgiving of ignorance - and start working on solutions that might get some traction.

The debate is endless and favours the AGW hypothesis.
So let's forget that and move toward solutions.
Firstly a bit of ad hom on Al Gore - to all those who have read animal farm - he's the fattest pig in this context - a narcissist and energy pig whose interest in self sacrifice is zero.
This ad hom is however highly relevant to the Australian economic position
Entirely dependent for its high standard of living on mineral exports - I would suggest that all Australian mineral exports be taxed to the eyeballs as we know that the minerals will be converrted to steel etc via largely coal fired stationsin China
Likewise the oil producing nations should have their CO2 producing commodity taxed to the eyeballs. We know that China has a tiny middle class and a huge number of poor - same as India.
These guys are not going to change their emmission habit
to save the world when most of their people will be lucky to live to 50.
So contemplate the real solution which causes real pain rather than predictably totally ineffectual emmissions trading.
Consider the following thought experiment
Your child will die from a treatable disease only if 6 tons of CO2 is required to produce the drug necessary.
Under a strict CO2 control scenario your child dies.
With a liberal policy he lives.
This is the real world and not some ivory tower world most of you live in
Incidentally I have worked widely enough in Australia over the last two years to know you have destroyed the Murray Darling Basin- I have travelled the parched land many times I spent 4 months beside the Murray trickle.
You can't even sort that out let alone the vastly more complex issue of AGW.
So reflect upon this before you all get onto your high horses and pour invective upon any person who adopts a mildly contrary view. Incidentally yur cbushfires recently produced a third of Australiaâs total CO2 emissions.
For your own sakes - and I see many of you are addicted to this blog - ie you were there 4 years ago - the world will never change for you. So do yourselves a favour and think laterally - be forgiving of ignorance - and start working on solutions that might get some traction.

Are you Andrew or Nick? Make up your mind. If you do not even know your own name, how can we take anything you say seriously?

I've just finished Plimer's book. Lots of interesting science, but often he repeats statements in subsequent pages and chapters, so not a perfectly written book.

Plimer rants about urban atheist environmentalists, pigeon-holes all on the other side into a narrow band of fanatics knowingly telling mistruths and demonises his opposition, accusing all of having shallow spirituality and religious-like zealous fervor.

He strangely quotes a cardinal (who talks of pagan emptiness and hysteria on the side of the climate change worriers), and also Pope Benedict who states "It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure" which is the pot calling the kettle black coming from a religious fanatic who lives to dogmatically preach ideology every day. Why does Plimer feel the need in his conclusion to "add" weight to his scientific arguments by siding with the Catholic Church, having been extremely vitriolic earlier in the book against global warming groups or committees when non-scientists and politicians have been given centre stage to teach or talk about the topic. This seems an obvious double standard on his part, and quite inappropriate and bizarre.

He ends by talking about God, without qualifying that God may not exist or be the benign type of overseer he prays to. Hardly science, though he accuses others of not qualifying unsustantiated statements. Plimer has a go at those he calls zealots for climate change who believe in âmystery, magic and miraclesâ, yet must himself believe in a host of biblical myths and the unproven magical claims of Christianity. Why put this ending in a science book? He must be a tad unusual. It does appear clumsy and unscientific. Who is the religious zealot, Prof Plimer? Pity he doesn't stick to science alone. He is so vitriolic that his style also at times detracts from his message.

#601 & #602 - busted!.

Over and over you cite Plimer's statements that the hockey stick graph is fraudulent. It is fraudulent on a number of levels. On what basis do you think it is legitimate???

Some Anonymous person can't defend Plimer's distions so tries to change the topic (and tries to do so with no citations).

Anonymous I suggest if you want to argue a different topic to you find the relevent thread. I can suggest [this one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07/hockey_stick_hockey_stick_hock…).

Some [unoriginal idiot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia…) speaks about "the hockey stick graph" as if there was only one such graph.

Said idiot needs to understand that not only are there many independent dendrochronological studies that all describe a 'hockey stick' in the temperature record, but that ice core data, glacial retreat data, coral data, instrument data, borehole pulse data, and sundry other methods also describe the same hockey stick shape in the temperature record.

It is upon these diverse, independent, and scientifically tested and retested studied that any thinking science professional understands that the hockey stick is "legitimate". [Start here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/), idiot, if you need to learn some basics.

If said idiot has any evidence at all that he believes supports his claim of fraud, I invite him to put it forward. Incapacity to promptly do so will be taken as explicit acknowledgement that said idiot knows that he is speaking out of his arse.

Inept troll.

I contribute some comments that correspond roughly to a reply to the posting number 374.

{I start with a bracketed comment to identify my grounds for entering the forum. Since
retiring at the end of April 2008 after a 30+ year career as team member of (three) high
proton-beam power spallation neutron source projects (ISIS, SINQ & PSI-UCN - actually I had
great fun before this helping other physics areas) responsible for modelling these horrendous devices from the
fundamental nuclear physics level, I have investigated, somewhat, the climate/global-warming scene.
Actually my fancy was caught first by the Vostock data, which was presented as part of the
introduction in a seminar given by one of the IPCC team; as a physicist this caught my attention as
it has to be the most beautiful data to come out of "climate" research to date. (Sad that it has not yet had
an adequate explanation.}

I have read Prof. Plimer's book and only came across this web-site in an effort to try and find out what
was the problem that experts have that could cause so much acrimony; unfortunately, I find that most
of the critisisms are ill considered (Dr. Lambert, in particular, please re-read your criticisms
and then return to the appropriate sections of the book and put together the pictures you criticise
with its related textual material and compare; both are essential parts of a scientific argument -
only arguments used to support commerce are otherwise). My feeling is that the major cause of
accrimony is that Prof. Plimer in his book has carried out the job that the IPCC (and other
"climate scientists") should have done: this, I roughly interpret as being "to report on the
significance of the current (observed) changes in the climate".

The immediate problem is the quality of the arguments for the need to apply strong measures to
restrict CO2 emission. There are three main issues; climate change; global warming;
the contribution of humans to either or both. The IPCC reports have merged these considerations
so that any clarity as to which part particular pieces of evidence belong is lost. With some
difficulty I find that the most important, third concern (the role of human based CO2 emission)
is supported by the following evidence only (i) a temporal correlation between rise in the average
global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, (ii) a change in the C-13
to C-12 content in the atmosphere and (iii) most climate models based on observed on observed
increases in CO2 levels support the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2
concentration.

Unfortunately, a temporal correlation has nothing to say about causation, the observed changes in
the C-13 to C-12 ratio are about one order of magnitude below the currently known value for this
ratio so statistically not significant and building in a linear forcing in a calculation in no way
constitutes independant evidence (this is building a linear rise of temperature with CO2 level into
the calculation as a basic assumption).

Are such arguments adequate to justify the costs? What are the costs? (A pythonesque situation
with a somewhat humbled Clease saying "sorry" against a background of nuclear plumes "but the
results of the calculation were only slightly wrong due to the sign error in subroutine grope"
perhaps gives a picture of the politicians nightmare and is not so fanciful when you read the
reports about the bickering between statespersons in Copenhagen).

I have the feeling that "climate scientists" have forgotten that they are doing no more than
applying known/accepted physical law to the study of the energy distribution within the complete
Earth system (they are neither contributing to nor extending physical law, this is the field
of expertise of natural science: this has no relevance to the intellectual difficulties involved
with either study but does put the onus on "climate science" to justify their assumptions).
However, each component of the system has one or more specialised area of physical science
involved with it, with experts who are able to recognise where the quality of your scientific
judgement may be questionable as it conflicts with their observations: their opinions deserve
respectful treatment.

"climate scientists" also seem to have forgotten that good politicians have a natural ability to
sense the quality of argument (this has little or nothing to do with detailed knowledge of the
subject); without such an ability a politician doesn't last long.

Gentleplums, the quality of your argumentation is poor and urgently needs improvement. You are
somewhat cursed by your lay supporters (Using drowned polar bears as evidence? Ursus Maritimus!)
and by placing so much reliance on visual examples, the melting of arctic region ice and glaciers,
rather than "the reduction in the ttt glacier is x% larger than occured in the last y ice ages"

Scientific credibility is what is needed; this could be gained by being able to publish a letter with a title something
like "Human emission of CO2 is the sole cause of the rise of average temperature rise over
the last 150 years" in 'Physical Review Letters': Four pages for argument, references and authors, now that would be peer review.

Atchison's strawman:

>this could be gained by being able to publish a letter with a title something like "Human emission of CO2 is the sole cause of the rise of average temperature rise over the last 150 years" in 'Physical Review Letters':

The scientists aren't saying that its the sole cause, but rather that increases in greenhouse gases are the cause of most of the warming in the past 50 years.

And like Plimer you proceed by simply pretending that most of their arguments don't exist. To quote from my review, which you don't seem to have read:

>And what of evidence that contradicts his conclusion? For example, the fact that the stratosphere is cooling contradicts his theory that the sun is the cause of recent warming. What does Plimer say about this in a 500 page book with a 70 page chapter on the atmosphere? Nothing. It's not mentioned at all.

F Atchison, as a physicist, do you agree with Plimer's claim that the sun is mainly composed of iron?

Unfortunately, a temporal correlation has nothing to say about causation

Also, as a physicist, surely you've heard of Tyndall? He was the first to show that GHGs warm the planet, that we'd be living in a very cold environment without them. The physics didn't get nailed down until 50-60 years ago, but even that's far earlier than (say) Hansen's 1989 speech to Congress.

Causation was nailed down first, leading to predictions that more CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet. The correlation is supporting evidence for the causation-based prediction.

What's your excuse for being so wrong on such a basic point?

He's no physicist. Probably a technician ...

building in a linear forcing in a calculation in no way constitutes independant evidence (this is building a linear rise of temperature with CO2 level into the calculation as a basic assumption).

1. The forcing is known from physics. It's not a "basic assumption".

2. It's not linear in the concentration of CO2 at the concentrations being talked about, it's linear per doubling of the concentration.

>* "Human emission of CO2 is the sole cause of the rise of average temperature rise over the last 150 years"*

F. Atchison provides evidence that nuclear physisisits are not immune from raving on with big words whilst suffering from the DunningâKruger effect.

>*I have read Prof. Plimer's book and only came across this web-site in an effort to try and find out what was the problem that experts have that could cause so much acrimony

F. Atchison did you like Plimer's figure 3? Or [Ian Entings list](http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91)? What do you think of such distortions. And what do you think of his failure to correct these when presented with overwhemling evidence of the errors/distortions/manipulations?

>*My feeling is that the major cause of accrimony is that Prof. Plimer in his book has carried out the job that the IPCC (and other "climate scientists") should have done: this, I roughly interpret as being "to report on the significance of the current (observed) changes in the climate".*

Do you normally let your '*feeling*' shape your veiw in face of contary evidence?

>*Gentleplums, the quality of your argumentation is poor and urgently needs improvement.*

Pot meet kettle. Difference is the critique of Plimer is based on evidence. The critique by Atchison is mere rhetoric.

>*He's no physicist. Probably a technician ...*

In that case I ammend my previous statement:

>*F. Atchison [adds to the ample] evidence [of people] raving on with big words whilst suffering from the DunningâKruger effect.*

Eli picked a nit with Plimer. The guy is contagiously clueless.

F. Atchison it looks strongly as though you've just written, above, more than you've actually read of the science on the subject. This is not normally conducive to getting things right. Tim draws attention to multiple errors of fact, not opinion, made without apology or correction by Plimer. It's somewhat surprising that despite telling us you're a physicist you've addressed none of them.

Some replies to posts 610 to 617

No. 610: The scientists aren't saying its the sole cause ...

To reiterate, as I see it "The immediate problem is the quality of the arguments for the need to apply
strong measures to restrict CO2 emission." The role of human emitted CO2 is the only important issue
in the short term and particularly so when politicians starting bickering, as they seem to have done
in Copenhagen. I am going to put a couple of quotes from the IPCC as representing the scientists
(as this is the body that, at present, is advising governments on what to do and it is governments who
have to implement any changes, I hope this is not unreasonable):

This chapter should be cited as: Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo,
J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott, 2007: Understanding and Attributing
Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread. Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can
be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans.
Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions of different natural and
anthropogenic forcings to observed changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the
past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an
offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings. It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global
pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely
that it is due to known natural external causes alone.

The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural
external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling. Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused
most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational
and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by
climate models. It is also robust to the use of different climate models, different methods for estimating
the responses to external forcing and variations in the analysis technique.

Perhaps I have to spell things out in more detail. The main problem I found in trying to extract information
from the IPCC reports, is that they have mixed together 3 rather separate issues:

1. Climate change, 2. Global warming and 3. The role of humankind emitted CO2.

To quote again what I put in the first post: As hard as I looked through the IPCC reports, the only evidence
that I could find for the role of human based CO2 emission as a significant progenitor is

(i) a temporal correlation between rise in the average global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration:

(ii) a change in the C-13 to C-12 content in the atmosphere and

(iii) most climate models based on observed on observed increases in CO2 levels support the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration

If there is stronger evidence, it might be a good idea to quote it rather than saying that I am pretending
that most of their arguments don't exist; if this better evidence is around why not just quote it as if
it is to be of any use, it will be quite short and very easy to understand.

I will comment on your review with the considerations of the comments to No.614.

Come in No.612: "Unfortunately, a temporal correlation has nothing to say about causation". This
is not physics, this is statistics and simply means you have to establish independently that
the correlation is meaningful. (The classic demonstration from my youth was the positive correlation
between the number of priests and the consumption of spirits in (I think) the Yukon.)

I have heard of Tyndall (as also I have heard of Arrhenius). The proper explanation of what is going on
in the case of GHG's is quantum mechanical in nature (Black-body radiation and the interaction of photons
with molecules) and has no explanation within classical physics (Tyndall didn't survive to see QM and
Arrhenius, apparently, rejected it).

The two important consequences are that (1) blackbody radiation ONLY comes from bound lattice systems
and (2) IR is lost within extremely narrow energy bands only. The consequence of (1) is simply that
only solids and liquids (these have a measurable lattice structure) contribute. In the case of (2)
the absorption process results in chunks of the IR spectrum being cut out, or that only restricted energy
bands within the IR spectrum are transmitted but without loss. The particular region of interest is
the window formed by water and CO2 energy levels (in roughly the 10 to 20 micron region and about 20%
of the IR gets through this window): CO2 and other GHG's will have nearly classic variation with concentration
while the window frames are being built, but once the frame is established, further increasing the
concentration will have little extra effect (it is not significant if the transmission through the "frame"
changes from 0.01% to 0.00001%). I would suggest reading some of the history of the development of QM
(The work, from Planck through to the final establishment of the basis of atomic spectra, with Dirac's
explanation of electron spin, took about 30 years and shows how science should be done.) and some
IR astronomy as the scientists involved know about transmission if IR through the atmosphere.

Come in No.613: To quote from IPCC:

This ("Radiative forcing") is defined as (Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts,
D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and
R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis,
K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

"The change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave, W/m2) at the tropopause after
allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and
tropospheric temperature and state fixed at the unperturbed value and represents a linear change
of mean climate change between equilibrium climate states.

"Radiative forcing continues to be a useful tool to estimate, to a first order, the relative climate
impacts (viz., relative global mean surface temperature responses) due to radiatively induced
perturbations. The practical appeal of the radiative forcing concept is due, in the main, to the
assumption that there exists a general relationship between the global mean forcing and the global
mean equilibrium surface temperature response (i.e., the global mean climate sensitivity parameter),
Lambda, which is similar for all the different types of forcings. Model investigations of responses
to many of the relevant forcings indicate an approximate near invariance of Lambda (to about 25%).
There is some evidence from model studies, however, that Lambda can be substantially different for
certain forcing types. Reiterating the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996a) (hereafter SAR),
the global mean forcing estimates are not necessarily indicators of the detailed aspects of the
potential climate responses (e.g., regional climate change).

In my youth, the natural question that would follow this type of statement was "Would you launch yourself
into space on such a basis?"

P.S. A good technician is worth more than a poor physicist; see the comments to No.612 just above.

Come in No.614:
Dear Kettle, consider, perhaps, the statement that 'those who write "F. Atchison provides evidence that
nuclear physisisits are not immune from raving on with big words whilst suffering from the Dunning-Kruger
effect." are also suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect'. Shades of Epimenides but I don't think
you will get a Gödel type theorem out of it!

"F. Atchison did you like Plimer's figure 3? Or Ian Entings list? What do you think of such distortions.
And what do you think of his failure to correct these when presented with overwhelming evidence of the
errors/distortions/manipulations?"

I spent a few weeks in the back end of last year, going through the criticisms of Georg Monbiot and of Tim Lambert point by point (I wrote the comments down, they are both rather long but I will attach them as a reply to an e-mail from Dr Lambert, should you want them). However, be warned, my general conclusion was that neither of these two people had read the book accurately. I started to look at Ian Entings list, and found it similar to Dr. Lambert's so included comments on them with those on Dr Lambert's work.

There are lots of errors in Prof. Plimer's book (No.611, I didn't find that one about the Sun, but I was not going out of my way to find errors; is it a typo perhaps? Is it really relevant to the discussion?)

Regarding Fig 3: I take it merely as an illustration of the point he was making in the question starting at the bottom of Page 24, last paragraph "If CO2 derived from modern industrialisation ..." and later on "The 20th century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling".

The graph shows this quite clearly. Is the variation now removed from the literature, e.g. the recent "Met Office", Hadley graph issued at the start of 2009 and somewhat before the date of the first post by you, Dr. Lambert!

In general I dislike graphs that omit data points, error bars, etc. but, anyway, it is only a picture to illustrate a point being made in the introduction. It is not clear to me why so much significance is put on such a graph anyway: the relevant quantity is the IR power being emitted by the surface, i.e. the development of a (T^4 x emissivity) integral over the Earth's surface would be a more useful quantity as it is a more direct signal of significant change: IR emissivity values will change somewhat with surfaces type, so shifting positions of heating sources will cause benign but necessary temperature changes; the known cyclic variations might even help in pulling the signal out from the noise!

No.615, 616 and 617: Its rather sad to see these contributors, again, exercising their literary rather than their scientific skill. Why not, for a change, try writing a few sentences summarising the scientific proof that emission of CO2 by humankind is the cause of the current temperature rise. (This is not about melting glaciers and icecaps, dead and dying Polar bears, etc. it is giving the proof that emission from coal/oil-fired power stations, traffic jams, etc., etc. is the cause.)

As you think I am an idiot, this is obviously straightforward and easy, so shouldn't take long to do.

F. Atchison:

the only evidence that I could find for the role of human based CO2 emission as a significant progenitor is
(i) a temporal correlation between rise in the average global temperature and
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration:
(ii) a change in the C-13 to C-12 content in the atmosphere and
(iii) most climate models based on observed on observed increases in CO2 levels support
the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration

Haven't you ever heard of the fact that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation?

F. Atchison write:

>*I spent a few weeks in the back end of last year, going through the criticisms of Georg Monbiot and of Tim
Lambert point by point*

Please Publish these, I would be very interested to read thee based on the following:

>*Regarding Fig 3: I take it merely as an illustration of the point he was making*

So you think using fabricated and known erroneous charts are fine if they illustrate a point you want to make?

Dunning Kruger poser!

Chris O'Neill, are you unaware that you are an idiot?

The fact that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation is not proof of AGW. Ask yourself a couple of simple questions; why will they not share the original station data? How did we test mean global temperature in 1850? Why do they have to lie about rain in Africa, Glaciers in the Himalayas, Polar Bears, the Amazon Rainforest if this is science? Why is there not a single computer model that can predict the past ten years, let alone the next fifty?

I am all for evaluating the possibities of global warming and cooling and what it would mean for all of us, but this is merely the latest and largest global theft that has been perpetrated on the public.

Bruce, you're blathering. Take your medication. Please.

Reply to number 619:

Haven't you ever heard of the fact that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation?

Yes I have. I hope that you did not pose this question as a reasoned, or telling, reply to the extract you quote: My statement was

"... the only evidence that I could find for the role of

human based CO2 emission

(This is the CO2 produced by humans in utilising fossil fuels mainly)

as a significant progenitor is

(i)a temporal correlation between rise in the average global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

(ii)a change in the C-13 to C-12 content in the atmosphere and

(iii)most climate models based on observed on observed increases in CO2 levels support the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration."

Reply to comment No. 620.

I accept your comment of what I wrote as fair criticism, as on re-reading, I see that it is somewhat sloppily phrased. I did actually bother to look around for other data and found that the graph showed roughly the same behaviour as seen in other publications and so was probably good enough to illustrate the point being made (that temperatures go up and down):

â¢The graph in Fig.3 of Plimer, shows between 1947 and 1978 a fall from 0.55° in 1947 to 0.37° in 1978 (a drop of 0.18° over 31 years)

â¢J. Oerlemans, Science 308, 675 (2008): 0.133° in 1940 to -0.025° in 1970 (a drop of 0.16° in 30 years)

â¢IPPC, Synthesis report, Fig SPM-10b: -0.074° in 1944 to -0.203 in 1950 (a drop of 0.13° in 6 years); -0.153° in 1960 to -0.24° in 1965 (a drop of 0.09° in 5 years)

â¢Mann et al in 1998: 0.23° in 1960 to -0.08° in 1974 (0.15° in 14 years â I will agree with anyone that points out that this is highly speculative because of the confusion in the graph!)

â¢GISStemp_2008_graph_Irg (sorry, I canât remember the exact place I got this one but you presumably recognise it): 5 year averaged data, 0.11° in 1943 to -0.06° in 1948 (a drop of 0.17° in 5 years), 1 year averaged data, 0.2° in 1944 to -0.15° in 1950 (fall of 0.35° in 6 years)

â¢Uni. East Anglia (Hadcrut3): 0.025° in 1942 to -0.22° in 1949 (a fall of 0.25° in 7 years)

â¢Loehle & McCulloch, Energy and environment 19, 93 (2008): -0.22° in 1900 to +0.16° in 1930 (no data in the relevant region)

These values and looking at (admittedly only part of) the raw data and its associated noise, seem to me to give rather satisfactory agreement for the âdimensionsâ of this localised feature. Does this agreement mean that you are suggesting that, âde factoâ, all this temperature data is âfabricated and known erroneousâ?

As regards making my comments on the critiques of Tim Lambert and Georg Monbiot available: I will stick by my offer made in No.618, that I will attach them as a reply to an e-mail from Dr Lambert, should they be wanted.

It's an interesting challenge to explain the greenhouse effect to someone who doesn't want to believe in it, and like explaining atomic or nuclear structure, it really cannot be done without the person with hands over ears knowing a fair amount of stuff. The really short version is in caps at the bottom. The numbers used are based on measurements or averages of measurements. Let's list a few of the preliminaries and put quotes around concepts that anyone interested in learning more can google

0. Eli is going to use the "Kelvin temperature scale" which is the appropriate one for all thermodynamical stuff.

1. In the atmosphere it gets colder the higher you go up to about 12 km. This is called the "adiabatic lapse rate" and is a result of gravity compressing the atmosphere. **

** (above the "tropopause" the atmosphere warms again in the "ozone layer" but that plays no role in the greenhouse effect)

2. A solid body emits thermal radiation in the infrared (IR), this is called "black body radiation" and the amount emitted as a function of frequency (or wavelength) is described by the "Planck radiation formula". The total amount emitted per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature (ecT^4) according to the "Stefan Boltzmann law". e is a constant called the emissivity, c usually written as the Greek sigma, is the "Stefan Boltzmann constant". e is close to unity for all solids or liquids.

3. The total amount of energy in the sunlight absorbed by the earth per unit time, has to be emitted to space for the Earth to remain at a constant temperature. The emission is all in the thermal IR. There is very little, to no overlap between the "solar spectrum" and the thermal IR emitted by the Earth. If less energy is emitted, the Earth warms, both the surface and the atmosphere until the temperature is high enough (see "Stefan Boltzmann Law") to restore the balance. If more energy is emitted, the Earth cools, both the surface and the atmosphere, again, until the temperature is low enough to restore the balance.

With the preliminaries out of the way we can look at what the emission from the Earth looks like.

Look at the first figure. The x-axis is in frequency units, wavenumbers, used by spectroscopists. It is the inverse of the wavelength in cm. The y-axis is the intensity of emission in W/m^2 per unit wavenumber. The red curve is the emission, the others are "Planck function" curves for various temperatures. If you look to the right, you see that there are parts of the curve that roughly follow the Planck curve for ~290 K which is the temperature of the ground. This is radiation that is going through the atmosphere essentially undisturbed. The chaff is absorption by water. The dip at about 1000 wavenumbers is from absorption by ozone, the big dip at 675 wavenumbers is absorption by CO2.

Did Eli hear someone say, where did we see clouds. Look at the left hand side and the step after 1200 wavenumbers. Notice how the curve moves down to about the 260 K Planck function. That is because the clouds at the altitude corresponding to that temperature are absorbing light from the ground at those frequencies and emitting it both back to the ground and up into space. Since there is nothing between the top of the clouds and space to absorb at those frequencies, we see the emission characteristic of the temperature at that altitude.

The same thing is true of the CO2. At 375 "ppm", the current value, emission in the center of the CO2 band is characteristic of the 220 K Planck curve, and because the temperature is very low, the amount of energy radiated to space is low, about 70% of the amount of thermal radiation leaving the ground at those frequencies (220^4/290^4 = .71).

You also notice that there is structure on the sides of the CO2 band. If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the band widens, blocking MORE thermal radiation. To restore the balance the Earth system has to warm.

Let's talk about that. A lot of this discussion, as you have noticed has to do with rates at which energy is transferred. Thermodynamics requires is that no NET energy be transferred from a hotter to a colder body.

The rate at which sunlight is absorbed by the ground is ~170 W/m2. If there were no absorption of the thermal IR in the atmosphere the average temperature of the Earth would be AT MOST ~255 K*

*(Eli is making a simplification here having to do with cloud reflectivity, but the result is the same)

What happens when the "greenhouse gases" absorb the thermal IR? The molecules almost immediately and completely transfer that energy by collision to the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, slightly warming it, BUT, collisions also vibrationally excite the greenhouse gases, including CO2. The net result is that there is an equilibrium amount of vibrationally excited greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and this equilibrium amount depends on the local temperature.

The vibrationally excited greenhouse gas molecules emit IR in all directions, including back to the surface. With the greenhouse effect the rate at which thermal energy leaves the surface is ~390 W/m2. The rate at which the thermal energy returned to the surface is, ~325 W/m2 (go look at the Trenberth diagrams referenced below). Therefore the NET amount of energy leaving the surface due to radiation is ~65 W/m2. Of course this neglects convection, evaporation of water and a few other things. Add everything up and you get that on NET the rate at which the surface radiates is 170 W/m2 but here is the joker

BECAUSE OF THE GREENHOUSE GASES THE SURFACE HAS TO BE WARM ENOUGH TO RADIATE 390 W/m2, AND THAT MEANS THAT IT IS AT ~290 K RATHER THAN LESS THAN 255 K

If you want a more detailed exposition
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/…

F Atchison shows more of his colours:

>*These values [Plimered plagerised and [fabricated figure 3](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o…)]. and looking at (admittedly only part of) the raw data and its associated noise, seem to me to give rather satisfactory agreement for the âdimensionsâ of this localised feature. Does this agreement mean that you are suggesting that, âde factoâ, all this temperature data is âfabricated and known erroneousâ?*

Plainly not, it is the disagreement between the scientific data and fabricated temperature chart that seems to have attracted both Plimer and Durkin. That you either choose not to recognise this, or give it your OK says something.

And makes me wonder further what is in your point by point rebuttle to the Enting critique of H+E, re. [F.A.'s comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia…):

>*I spent a few weeks in the back end of last year, going through the criticisms of Georg Monbiot and of Tim Lambert point by point (I wrote the comments down, they are both rather long but I will attach them as a reply to an e-mail from Dr Lambert, should you want them). However, be warned, my general conclusion was that neither of these two people had read the book accurately. I started to look at Ian Entings list, and found it similar to Dr. Lambert's so included comments on them with those on Dr Lambert's work.*

So you haven't published these point by point rebuttles, and you are left simply claiming that Plimer's critics either:

1) didn't read his book accurately; or

2) wrote critiques that were similar to those of people who you say didn't read his book accurately.

That's sweet F.Atchison.

But perhaps neither Monckton nor Plimer himself read his book accurately as, speaking as the "we" for Plimer and hiself, Monckton (and Plimer in the "we") have thrown much of Plimers arguments [under the bus](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2256445):

>*We are going to concede, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which possess or mimic a dipole moment, cause warming if you add them to the atmosphere. We concede also, that human kind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at about the rate that the NOAA figures mention. So we are not trying to pretend, that we are not the cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing, we are not going to try to pretend that that CO2 will cause no warming.*

So you better now refine your defense of Plimer to what the Viscount now says Plimer is arguing.

I am not certain if posting No.624 is intended as a reply to the comments at the end my Posting 618 or not but, certainly, its content has little or nothing to do with them or their associated question. However, some good has come out of it: the reference to the paper of J.T. Kiehl & K.E. Trenberth. It will be interesting to compare the cross-sections implied by the measurements reported, with various sources; up till now I have only found the Cess et al and the Cutton measurements to use as a consistency check on cross-section data.

However, to comment on your cameo starting âIt's an interesting challenge to explain the greenhouse effect to someone who doesn't want to believe in it, and like explaining atomic or nuclear structure, it really cannot be done without the person with hands over ears knowing a fair amount of stuff.â, then more ⦠How about:

âIt is the name given to the process that resulted in a 5.97 X 10^21 tonne blob of molten rock etc. cooling to form the present Earth with a surface temperature of around 18°C rather than about -18°C expected with the heat available from the Sun.â

Any misgivings are with the explanations of the mechanism of the process, as presented, and NOT about whether it happened.

I offer (to no one in particular) the video of The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History, Richard Alley's (Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Penn State) presentation to the AGU last December.

it seems as if plimer has used all the same tricks,and methods he exposed so well when they were used by the creation "science" advocates 20 odd years ago. as plimer is an intelligent man ,i can only assume he has written this book knowing full well that it will be consumed and regurgitated forever by those who believe that science is deciding on the result you want and then quoting the "facts' that support your result,while ignoring anything contradictary. its all been done before by the creationists and intelligent design mobs,and maybe plimer is trying a surefire way of cashing in . [he did lose his house in a lawsuit with duanne gish,a prominent creationist,some years ago..that would make most people bitter and twisted!!]

Gentlemen, If only I had the time to study all your comments, on this site, regarding the science behind global warming. If I did then I could learn sufficient to permit me
to gain a BSc.

My scientific qualifications are humble, to say the least, yet my interests and readings in the field of science, are vast. So the one thing that the history of science has shown me is that the minority view, on a subject, at times tends to become the majority view over time.
To this end I sit on the same side as those who aresceptical about man made global warming.
Primarily because global warming is a natural phenomenon as is global cooling too and this current warming cycle does fit into the known warming/cooling cycles of our planet. I say itâs pure conjecture to state that man is currently the cause of this current warming phase especially since this current phase is occurring when it should be.

The causes behind global warming and global cooling must be a very difficult science to master since it clearly involves the other faculties of science in itâs make up. So to understand whatâs truly the cause ofthesewarming /cooling cycles the scientist needs to have mastered all these faculties. He needs to have mastered climatology, meteorology, geology and also chemistry to truly be able to understand cause and effect. Do such scientists exist else all one does is quote other scientists work, in the above quoted fields, without known if their data is sound or not.

Our planetâs population is panicking, driven by an ever-expanding Green Brigade. Surely if ever a clearer piece of proof was needed to tell one and all, âGet off this man made global warming band wagonâ for itâs going to lead you totally in the wrong direction. Especially true when you find yourself sharing a seat, in this wagon, with your government too. For now you know itâs time to get off for they all seem to get caught going the wrong wayâ¦.read your history.

Even today we fail to plan for tomorrow so neither did we, yesterday, plan for this warming phase of today. Had we planed for it by reading our climate history then we would not be in such a panic, now. Here, we still fail, for we are not yet planing for the next big cooling phase to come, and it will come. When it does arrive then the problems associated with it are going to far out weigh those
experienced, at the moment, under our current warming phase with itâs couple of degrees increase in global temperatures.

Yours humbly

Mike Hind.
M.I.diag.E

Shorter Mike Hind. M.I.diag.E:

_the minority view, on a subject, at times tends to become the majority view over time. To this end I sit on the same side as those who are "sceptical" about the Earth being round._

_Warming and cooling have happened before without being man made, therefore it's impossible for human activities to cause global warming._

_The causes behind global warming and global cooling must be a very difficult science to master. I haven't mastered them and that's why I think the people who have mastered them are wrong._

_Yours pompously,
Mike Hind. M.I.diag.E_

@Mike Hind:
The mere idea that humans affect the climate has very long been a minority view. It's since the work of Callendar and Keeling that more and more scientists were paying attention to the effect of anthropogenic emissions on global climate.

Oh, and the next cooling phase is most likely many, many centuries in the future. If we don't get ourselves in a very long term heat phase (I can't call it warm) with ongoing CO2 emissions...

The graph on p11 has more serious problems than the 2008 temperature being way off, no source given. The worst is that he uses different baselines for the temperature measurements than he uses for the projections, in order to make they appear to be off. If he had used the same baselines, the temperature measurements would have been shifted up about 0.15 degrees, making them match the projections extremely well. Check out the data yourself if you don't believe me. This is what the graph would have looked like if he had done it correctly: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rahmstorf2.jpg.

I guess it boils down to what you want to believe. Thousands of people believe in the Bible yet thousands don't, whose right. The sad fact remains that govenments use fear to control their people, fear of nuclear war the red scourge.aids,terrorism and now climate change. We cannot continue to over populate the world while distroying the natural balance of nature.

> I guess it boils down to what you want to believe.

Physics and climate don't change in response to what anyone wants to believe.

> The sad fact remains that govenments use fear to control their people

And corporations don't?

They prey on your fears and your insecurities.

Because they don't have to answer to you, they just want your money.

The thing is, Charles, I, and most others, want to believe the whole global warming thing is wrong because we really don't like the implications but we can't as nothing the skeptics/deniers have come up with has withstood scrutiny. Every time I examine their claims I am yet again disappointed in what they come up with. Climate change/global warming may be wrong but there is nothing that the opposition has come up with that has even remotely put a dint in what the science has been telling us. It's not a case of what we want to believe, it's what the evidence tells us.

I'm not a scientist. Just an ordinary person.
But I tell all of you one thing.

Climatologists are upset that someone who is a geologist wrote a book about climate change.
All of them want to keep their job. Same as a pack of wolves. They have to coexist. Same as you do.

All carbon tax is rubbish. Earth and cosmos has its cycles.
If that is hard to understand then you should have less sex, less population and less carbon emissions.

And -- live in a linear world.

Of course, if your computer data would prove else you all would be out of jobs.

How much money we waste for training, education and employment for creating something what is not required? A 'perhaps'? A 'maybe'?

What will be next? Study of dead if they are really dead?
All of you should focus on what you know. None of you can prove anything. ZERO.
Only time will tell. Or can you? Prove what will happen in 200 years. Make a nice computer model.
And guarantee it with your families.
Go for it.

If you can't do that you all are talking rubbish and you should not attack someone who is using his brain.
It might well show he was the only correct one.
The problem is it might be in thousand years time.

And your grand-grand... children will learn you were like those ones burning witches on stake for telling truth.

> Climatologists are upset that someone who is a geologist wrote a book about climate change.

No, they're upset that someone wrote a palpably **bad** book about climate change - someone not actually using their brain to find the truth.

> All of them want to keep their job.

And if climate change were not a concern, they would find other scientific research to work on. Their job does not depend on climate change being an issue.

The rest of your comment doesn't seem to make many coherent points, let alone ones that engage with the subject of this thread. If English is not your native language that might be a contributing factor, but it's difficult to tell.

I find it funny Tibor Santa is trying to defend Ian Plimer with the comment "all of them want to keep their job", considering Ian Plimer is directly involved in several coal mining companies and stands to loose millions (personally!) in the case of a carbon tax.

Tibor, I'll take it that you didn't read the criticisms of his book and that your belief in Plimer is based on faith and not evidence.

Perhaps you can explain to us, knowing what we do about climate sensitivity to Co2 and past feedbacks, how we can not worry about 200 years from now?

"Every time I examine their ["sceptics'"] claims I am yet again disappointed in what they come up with."

Precisely - when I decided to find out the facts about global warming that lie behind the nonsense in the media, I started to read the relevant literature and decided it was all far too complex for me to have an educated opinion on.

And then I read the stuff that Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Anthony Watt, Steve McIntyre, John McLean (NOTphD!) write about climate change and what they write is to straighforwardly, checkably wrong and so evidently self-contradictory and illogical, that I had no trouble deciding to have a firm view on global warming based on the "sceptics" being so obviously wrong.

And then there's Christopher Monckton who comes barging in with his size 24 clown-shoes. You'd think the deniers would be embarrassed, but they are so deluded they don't care how silly they look.

As a long-term very successful Ph.D. natural scientists, I can only say that it is too bad that Plimer's beautiful, thorough, and scholarly work is read by so many people who are bound helpless in their desperate effort to believe the Gore-ster, Soros, and the agw fantasies. "Pearls before swine" comes to mind.

Shorter "goodtallviking":
_As a long-term very successful Ph.D. natural scientists I'm unable to provide a single scientific argument in support of Plimer._

Dave R: Quite so.

GTV: "Pearls before swine" comes to mind.

Conversely, I consider "BS in your face" a more appropriate summation.

bound helpless in their desperate effort to believe the Gore-ster, Soros, and the agw fantasies

No one who isn't a moron writes -- or thinks -- as you do.

>*As a long-term very successful Ph.D. natural scientists, I can only say that...*

So that would be argument from anonymous authority?

Wake me up when you've got an non-fallacious argument.

Just read H & E. Comments to follow, but here is a start - Plimer claims to have asked proponents of anthropogenic global warming what observations would be necessary to conclude they were wrong, and not received an answer. Good question, but of course we need a similar question for the opponents of anthropogenic global warming.

Can someone propose a pair of statements, on which both sides can agree:

If we see XXX then human-induced global warming is occuring;
if we see YYY then it is not; and in the meantime we just don't know.

If not, then the issue is really an inability to agree on a common understanding of the meaning of the term.

Can someone propose a pair of statements, on which both sides can agree:

If we see XXX then human-induced global warming is occuring; if we see YYY then it is not; and in the meantime we just don't know.

I cannot comment on the XXX that would satisfy denialists, but for myself, if many indications of climate change, including global temperature measurements, borehole temperatures, changing distributions of plants, animals and diseases, melting of glaciers, ice sheets, Arctic ice and permafrost, dates of snow melt and river ice break-up, the disparity between incoming and outgoing radiation as measured by satellites, changes in flowering time, changes in plant hardiness zones, sea level rise and an increase in record high temperature events, showed a statistically significant departure from the expectations due to climate change, then I would consider the possibility that climate is not changing.

If it could be shown that CO2 is in fact transparent to infra-red radiation, or is not increasing in the atmosphere, or that data confirming the predictions of CO2-mediated climate change (e.g. troposphere vs stratosphere, day vs night, polar vs tropical reponses) are all wrong, preferably coupled with the discovery of a hitherto unknown mechanism for increasing Earth's temperature, then I would consider the possibility that climate change is not caused by increasing CO2. If it could be demonstrated that humans are not burning fossil fuels, then I would probably agree to 'anthropogenic' being dropped from the description.

Me? I'd happily accept a scientifically valid description of how CO2 lasers don't work for the reasons now currently given. Easy.

That would then have to be backed up showing that the same scientific evaluation applies to CO2 in the atmosphere. With further appropriate backup explaining why Arctic sea ice decline (start there and move on to other phenomena later) is caused by some other agency .... and there's no reason to worry about _that_.

Me? I'd happily accept a scientifically valid description of how CO2 lasers don't work for the reasons now currently given. Easy.

This prompts me to wonder if many denialists actually know how CO2 concentration is measured and whether they have tied it in with the thing they are arguing against.

648: I cannot comment on the XXX that would satisfy denialists, but for myself, if many indications of climate change, including ..., melting of ... Arctic ice, ... showed a statistically significant departure from the expectations due to climate change, then I would consider the possibility that climate is not changing.

An impressive list, with which I have a few quibbles.

A) I referred to the "denialists" as "opponents of anthropogenic global warming". A bit of a mouthful, but Plimer complained in H&E that the term "deniers" invoked images of Holocaust denial and was unfair. Maybe "sceptics" is a better term. Plimer refers to his critics as "zealots"!

B) Your list is a list of things we are currently seeing, which the sceptics are also seeing and explaining (like you, post hoc). What is required is a prediction of something never seen before on which the two sides disagree.

C) "Statistically significant" Sounds impressive. What does it mean?

D) Whose expectations. Plimer's or yours?

E) Plimer accepts that climate is changing. He seems to be disputing the claim that humans are a major contributing factor.

F) I highlighted the Arctic ice pack melt. I think this is an excellent statistic to focus on.