"One should not be kind to fools when they make public noise on matters of global importance."

Heh.

I did have you in mind, among the many.

Gosh, BBD. I take it that you'd also prefer that I didn't describe your own view as nuanced?

Do you really imagine that the 'mainstream' is as monolithic as you make out? In reality, it comprises many different perspectives from many different disciplines and it is not required to be consistent. Different researchers are allowed to have different takes on reality, and to work to develop their ideas. You also talk as if the only possible route to policy is through your own scientific position, and again that is simply not the case. For example, your position permits a number of possible policy responses. Furthermore, influences other than science are equally if not more important in working out what to do for the best.

You're very dismissive of the views of lay people, but I think you miss the basic point being made - which is that many in the 'mainstream' use science to try to exclude others from political debate. Many people object to this very strongly, and quite right too IMO. Can you explain to me what you are actually trying to achieve on this blog? If you want to persuade people to accept the need for decarbonization, then I think you are unlikely to succeed by calling them fools, liars, cheats, etc.

You make a similar mistake in your attitude to scientists who don't fit the pattern you have in your mind. Here is an example of exactly the same pointlessness from another of today's postings, @ Nov 18, 2011 at 10:06 AM from mydogsgotnonose. Compare the structure of this argument with the structure of some of your own comments about Pielke, Spencer and Koutsoyiannis. They really are not that different!

I am guilty of simply feeding the troll. I must be punished.

Philip

You also talk as if the only possible route to policy is through your own scientific position, and again that is simply not the case. For example, your position permits a number of possible policy responses.

You are going far beyond what I actually said. Nowhere do I mention policy. The previous discussion was purely one of the core science.

You're very dismissive of the views of lay people, but I think you miss the basic point being made - which is that many in the 'mainstream' use science to try to exclude others from political debate.

I am dismissive of ill-informed rubbish. Again, you are going well beyond what I say and extrapolating into politics. I do see your point, but it has little to do with what I have argued for and against on this thread.

Can you explain to me what you are actually trying to achieve on this blog? If you want to persuade people to accept the need for decarbonization, then I think you are unlikely to succeed by calling them fools, liars, cheats, etc.

I am trying to get people to remove their heads from their backsides and demonstrate some intellectual honesty. When they lie, distort, evade and obfuscate, I call them out. I make no policy argument. We are a long way prior to politics here. We are arguing about whether or not RF from CO2 is going to warm the climate system by ~3C by century's end (assuming BAU/BRIC industrialisation).

You make a similar mistake in your attitude to scientists who don't fit the pattern you have in your mind.

I disagree. Obfuscators need to be called to account. It's taken me far too long to understand this. Tolerance of low CS bad science and non-physical distractions from CO2 (eg DK and others) is mistaken because the axe-grinding of the few causes excessive confusion amongst the many (sceptics).

I don't see any similarity between the fulminations of mydogsgotnonose (used to be 'alistair' btw) and what I argue. You are stretching past breaking point on that one.

Dung

I am guilty of simply feeding the troll. I must be punished.

Oh, so now you cannot answer any of my questions I'm a troll. Pathetic.

You have comprehensively made yourself look stupid.

Bye.

"We are a long way prior to politics here."

I don't agree. The potential effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is already established beyond reasonable doubt, and is widely acknowledged, not least by many of the other contributors here. Since CO2 emissions are rising rapidly, a response needs to be formulated as an important and urgent practical matter. Politics enter at this point, because of the need to work out how best to respond. There is no need to obsess about the scientific details, in order to arrive here. The problems arise because some have tried to use science to control who has a say in these choices.

"I don't see any similarity between the fulminations of mydogsgotnonose (used to be 'alistair' btw) and what I argue."

The similarity is that you both attribute motivations to people that aren't evident in their words.

BBD says

Unless someone can show exactly what has been warming the planet recently then the hypothesis that CO2 is warming it must stand.

So, logically then, if CO2 increases 10-fold, and temperatures go down and nobody knows why, then the original hypothesis that CO2 is warming must still stand.

Have I got that right, BBD?

matthu

What are you talking about now?

BBD - i would have thought that was obvious from the context.

You claim that this statement

Unless someone can show exactly what has been warming the planet recently then the hypothesis that CO2 is warming it must stand.

is "scientifically literate". I am testing that.

Hypothetically, if CO2 increases 10-fold, and temperatures go down year on year and nobody knows why, then the original hypothesis that CO2 is dominant and warming must still stand.

Have I got that right, BBD?

No

So - quick change of view then?

Because you are now disagreeing with what the statements says - the one that you claimed was perfectly scientifically literate, and others, including me, thought was bollocks.

Philip

The similarity is that you both attribute motivations to people that aren't evident in their words.

Oh, here we go again. You have endorsed Lindzen, Spencer, RP Sr, Koutsoyiannis etc on this thread. You are obviously a lukewarmer or contrarian. You repeatedly describe mainstream thinking as 'alarmist'.

You are being disingenuous (and I am being polite).

How stupid do you think I am?

matthu

Stop pratting around. Do you think that by concocting word-salads that you are making a point?

Nor have you explained in crystal clear language why my original statement was scientifically illiterate.

This will be because it is not, and you are wrong. Hence your enforced resort to silly word-games.

Is there a point to this time-wasting, or is it just time-wasting?

Try endorsing
Professor John Christy
Professor Paul Reiter
Professor Philip Stott
Professor Patrick Michaels
Professor Ian Clark
Dr Piers Corbyn
Professor Tim Ball
Nigel Calder
Professor Nir Shaviv
Professor Fred Singer
Patrick Moore
Freeman Dyson
Dr. Ivar Giaever
Professor Hal Lewis
Roger Pielke Jr

in addition to Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr, et al.

You know what? It's no longer really a consensus - is it?

I am just highlighting how recalcitrant you are, BBD.

At one stage you almost seemed to have recognised how illiterate this sentence was:

Unless someone can show exactly what has been warming the planet recently then the hypothesis that CO2 is warming it must stand.

and yet ... and yet you still can't bring yourself to agree that it is, can you?

Never mind.

matthu

and yet ... and yet you still can't bring yourself to agree that it is, can you?

And you cannot show that it is incorrect. Which is presumably why this exchange has broken down into nonsense.

Singer, Ball, Reiter, Michaels, Clark - do you have the first idea how little credibility attaches to these names? I suppose not, or you would have done anything rather than list them in support of whatever it is you are wittering on about now.

What a waste of time this is.

Nor have you explained in crystal clear language why my original statement was scientifically illiterate.

When the alternative hypothesis is refuted, the hypothesis no longer stands. It is not necessary to come up with a different alternative hypothesis.

Try these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis

http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html

"You have endorsed Lindzen, ... You repeatedly describe mainstream thinking as 'alarmist' ... You are being disingenuous."

I'm not trying to endorse anyone, nor am I in a position to, despite your back-handed compliment. I deny that mainstream thinking is 'alarmist', I rather think that is your idea. I remain adamant that rising CO2 emissions are a problem, that should be resolved by decarbonization.

matthu

The hypothesis that RF from CO2 is heating the climate system has not been refuted.

BBD, that is irrelevant to our discussion.

Our discussion relates to whether or not you understand the concept of a null hypothesis as opposed to the alternative hypothesis. Not many climate change scientists do. (In fact Trenberth even thinks we should dispense with the null hypothesis altogether, and make the alternative hypothesis de facto the null hypothesis!)

Can you even state what you think the null hypothesis is (the one that you think has been rejected by a consensus of scientists)?

Er matthu, I think your confusion-sowing wriggling upthread has resulted in us discussing two different things.

I am done with allowing you to (mis) direct this conversation.

The hypothesis that RF from CO2 is heating the climate system stands.

The rest is pub-bore waffling.

Philip

I deny that mainstream thinking is 'alarmist', I rather think that is your idea.

Really?

Alarmists say that the science is "settled", because this means they can move on to (B).

[...]

I think this is a mistake, because it accepts the alarmist's proposition (science first, then politics), and makes it easier for them to avoid a proper inclusive debate about political objectives.

(Nov 17, 2011 at 4:25 PM)

Your words, not mine. That is why I say you are being disingenuous. Claiming that 'this is [my] idea' goes beyond being disingenuous. Be careful.

Let me remind you then. You claim that

Unless someone can show exactly what has been warming the planet recently then the hypothesis that CO2 is warming it must stand.

That is not how science works.

In science you state the alternative hypothesis you think holds true.
And you state the null hypothesis that is the default (i.e. in the absence of any evidence at all).

You then look for evidence that will allow you to reject the null hypothesis, usually with a 95% or 99% level of significance.

If it is not possible to reject the null hypothesis - for whatever evidential reason - the null hypothesis holds. It is not necessary to undertake any further explanation.

That is the stage we are still at, because there is simply not enough evidence to show that some unconsidered natural factor may be causing warming - just as it may have done in the past. Why is this the case? because scientists admit that the undertainty is too great to assume anything else.

But I won't try to explain this any further, because you have made it very clear this is a foreign concept to you.