This thread would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Out in the real world the UN has quietly (but significantly) changed its definition of climate change, the IPCC is running for cover with a statement that for the next 20-30 years natural variation will hold sway (read between the lines: global warming has stalled; read further between the lines: it looks as if we might be heading back into a repeat of 1940-1970), the IPCC has further decided to downplay the question of increases in average temperatures and is directing us instead to pay attention to extreme events (as an example of "Find the Lady" it's not bad but it won't work; we never take our eyes off their hands these days).
On another thread here there is a discussion about CO2 concentrations which is questioning the received IPCC wisdom based on ice cores and looking at actual measurements taken last century and work done on plant stomata — which may be right or may be wrong but is a serious debate.
Meanwhile what is happening here?
BBD is denigrating well-qualified (probably better qualified than Mann, Jones, et al if the truth be told) and well-respected scientists because they don't agree with him; he appears to be misunderstanding totally the concept of a null hypothesis; he swings between telling us that the last few decades warming trend was steeper than previous ones (it wasn't) and that the current cooling trend is less steep than previous ones (depends which set of data you use).
He is also (as I have accused him before) of engaging in the well-tried practice of diversionary tactics by demanding irrelevant detail like the precise number of scientists who said this or whether someone (matthu in this case) has been pedantically precise in his use of language. All this interspersed with a string of ad homs and generally offensive remarks to those he considers his intellectual inferiors. Which is anybody who disagrees with (a) his interpretation of the laws of physics and (b) his choice of scientific authority or climate data.
[Which, en passant, explains my reference to the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican; this was not a question of "losing" an argument; it was a comment on general attitude].
All of this is a pity, BBD, because you are a recent convert to the alarmist camp and your thought processes which led you to that state of mind and your defence of the science that underpins it could be of considerable value on a sceptic blog like this. Instead you behave less like a 46-year-old than a self-opinionated 16-year-old or too often like a six-year-old who has had his train set taken away.
And if you care to go back over the last six or seven pages of this thread you will find that you end up contradicting yourself. Lighten up, man!

In recent decades, there have been a number of debates on climate warming and its driving forces. Based on an extensive literature review, we suggest that (1) climate warming occurs with great uncertainty in the magnitude of the temperature increase; (2) both human activities and natural forces contribute to climate change, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and (3) the dominant role of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. More efforts should be made in order to clarify these uncertainties.

FANG JingYun1,2*, ZHU JiangLing1,2, WANG ShaoPeng1, YUE Chao1 & SHEN HaiHua1

“It isn’t whether there’s global warming; it’s how much there is. And how much of that is caused by humans? And there’s still a lot of uncertainty that and the skeptics are raising very good points on that issue.”

Richard Muller

“The surface temperature of the planet is a little less than a degree celsius warmer than it was a hundred years ago and people have something to do with it. They don’t have everything to do with it.”

Patrick Michaels

"there’s little question there is anthropogenic (human-caused) warming but the question is how much. We don’t know.”

Judith Curry

"Uncertainty in the fraction of recent warming attributable to natural versus anthropogenic influences, together with uncertainty in future natural forcing, remain important caveats."

Peter A. Stott

Mike Jackson

Out in the real world the UN has quietly (but significantly) changed its definition of climate change

Untrue and already discussed. See Nov 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM. Looks like you and matthu have both been fooled by the GWPF. Just read the words, not the spin.

the IPCC is running for cover with a statement that for the next 20-30 years natural variation will hold sway

The IPCC says that attribution of extreme weather to AGW will remain equivocal for 2 - 3 decades. This 'refutes' AGW not one bit. 'Running for cover'... untrue.

(read between the lines: global warming has stalled; read further between the lines: it looks as if we might be heading back into a repeat of 1940-1970)

This is not what the IPCC is saying. Yet more untruth.

On another thread here there is a discussion about CO2 concentrations which is questioning the received IPCC wisdom based on ice cores and looking at actual measurements taken last century and work done on plant stomata — which may be right or may be wrong but is a serious debate.

No it isn't. Beck was wrong, as Jeremy Harvey agrees at Nov 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM. This is a non-argument (and are you claiming that the huge increase in CO2 ppmv post-1950 is not anthropogenic? I do hope not.)

he swings between telling us that the last few decades warming trend was steeper than previous ones (it wasn't) and that the current cooling trend is less steep than previous ones (depends which set of data you use).

The rate of warming is increasing. I showed you this using means rather than trends (Nov 11, 2011 at 4:18 PM), and you had no answer other than to accuse me of dishonesty (Nov 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM) which I will not forget. Now, just as you have done previously, you have revereted to your debunked 'argument'. This is why I get short-tempered with you and others. You lack intellectual rigour, and frankly, honesty.

BBD is denigrating well-qualified (probably better qualified than Mann, Jones, et al if the truth be told) and well-respected scientists because they don't agree with him

Oh balls. I showed, with copious and exact references, how Lindzen's claims do not stand up. I also provided links that illustrate where Spencer and RP Sr are in error. Links. I denegrated no-one. You are denegrating me.

He is also (as I have accused him before) of engaging in the well-tried practice of diversionary tactics by demanding irrelevant detail like the precise number of scientists who said this or whether someone (matthu in this case) has been pedantically precise in his use of language.

Again, rubbish. Matthu got caught out twice making false claims and in both cases refused to admit it. He is dishonest (see Nov 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM). You are defending his dishonesty, therefore you too are dishonest.

Your misrepresentations of the null hypothesis argument upthread compound this. Matthu got into a right pickle trying to wriggle out of that one, and ended up looking very bad indeed. As do you for taking his part.

And if you care to go back over the last six or seven pages of this thread you will find that you end up contradicting yourself.

Really? Apart from when matthu's desperate attempts to confuse almost worked (Nov 18, 2011 at 6:31 PM) show me exactly where and how.

Go back and read the thread. You will find distortions and dishonesty aplenty, but not by me. You will also find that every single argument advanced by matthu and yourself failed. Every one.

And just look at the lengths you both went to to try and stay in the game.

This entire discussion is now as ridiculous as it is distasteful. And I am absolutely sick of being run down by you (and others) for refusing to let blatant nonsense and evasions pass unchecked. I mean just listen to yourself:

Instead you behave less like a 46-year-old than a self-opinionated 16-year-old or too often like a six-year-old who has had his train set taken away.

I should laugh this off, I know, but I am so utterly fed up it's getting hard.

I suppose this is how the 'sceptics' keep it going. Stubborn ignorance and dishonesty, on and on and on. Until anyone who cares about the facts just gives up and walks away.

That is not a victory, Mike.

matthu

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the Order of the Unsinkable Rubber Duck (First Class)!

Pin the bright yellow rubber duckie to your jacket and wear with pride.

BBd said

Matthu got caught out twice making false claims and in both cases refused to admit it. He is dishonest (see Nov 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM). You are defending his dishonesty, therefore you too are dishonest.

The claim was presumably that scientists were admitting there much more uncertainty about the causes of climate change than previously thought.

The evidence is here: Nov 20, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Awarding me a rubber duck is not the same as retracting a charge of dishonesty.

You could equally easily have found many examples of scientists expressing much more uncertainty about global warming than previously. The fact that you didn't do your own research maybe says more about your own mindset than anybody else's.

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

Bertrand Russell.

Except in your case, you don't even bother to scrutinze a claim that goes against your own instincts.

BBD

I am sure this extract from the introduction to the latest IPCC report was written especially for you:

German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch (2010) released their latest international survey of climate scientists in 2010. The survey, which was actually conducted in 2007, consisted of 120 questions.
The roughly bell-shaped distribution of answers is repeated for about a third of the 54 questions addressing scientific issues (as opposed to opinions about the IPCC, where journalists get their information, personal identification with environmental causes, etc.). Answers to the other questions about science were divided almost equally between distributions that lean toward skepticism and those that lean toward alarmism. What this means is that for approximately two-thirds of the questions asked, scientific opinion is deeply divided, and in half of those cases, most scientists disagree with positions.that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare.

BBD

I should have made clear that the extract was from:
Climate Change Reconsidered – 2011 Interim Report

matthu

You are dishonest. See Nov 19, 2011 at 9:29 PM.

Quack! Quack!

matthu

That you chose this Russell quote above all others is beyond irony. It is pure farce:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

All the self-awareness of... a duck, perhaps?

BBD
Thankyou for your reply, which I could have written for you if you had asked.
I was very careful about what I wrote. Virtually every word on the science could be disputed and I don't have a problem with your doing that.
But you haven't "disputed" it; you've simply dug yourself deeper into your little comfort zone and accused me — as you accuse anyone who doesn't share your interpretation of things — of being dishonest or stupid. Everything we write is "blatant nonsense" even though we are simply stating views that have been expressed by qualified scientists (of which I do not believe you are one). Alternatively you become offensive — "order of the rubber duck", this time; "pants on fire", earlier.
If that last jibe isn't evidence that it is time to leave your childhood behind, I don't know what is.

I also wonder why BBD should claim it is untrue that the UN has changed its definition of climate change?

Reflecting the diversity of the communities involved in this assessment and progress in science, several of the definitions used in this Special Report differ in breadth or focus from those used in the AR4 and other IPCC reports.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPM_Approved-HiRes_opt.pdf

Following straight on from that paragraph is this one

Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.2

This definition differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.

Now contributors to this blog don't normally go around accusing others on this blog of making untrue statements or of being dishonest. But BBD does.

And this is the second instance (on this page) that he is wrong.

And now the third instance of BBD claiming dishonesty is because he fails to recognise that a result based on an extensive literature review does back up a claim of 'sceptical' ideas being supported by a 'substantial body' of mainstream climatologists.

I quoted the extensive literature review here: Nov 20, 2011 at 5:15 PM

BBD - retract all the claims of dishonesty please.

Mike Jackson

How odd. I write reams at Nov 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM and there isn't a single substantive response in your comment at Nov 20, 2011 at 7:04 PM.

I will take that as concrete evidence that everything I say - every statement, every challenge - is correct and unopposed by yourself.

DNFTT

matthu

BBD - retract all the claims of dishonesty please.

No. I reiterate the charge. I've explained where and why above, so that doesn't need repetition.

You over-stepped the mark upthread, and now you can live with the consequences.

Ha!

Once again, someone who has lost and argument and is caught out in falsehoods plays the Troll card.

Fantastic. Thanks.

What a farce this is!

Now contributors to this blog don't normally go around accusing others on this blog of making untrue statements or of being dishonest. But BBD does.

Well I have to, don't I, because some commenters here refuse to answer a straight question six times in a row...

And this is the second instance (on this page) that he is wrong.

And the first was?

And now the third instance of BBD claiming dishonesty is because he fails to recognise that a result based on an extensive literature review does back up a claim of 'sceptical' ideas being supported by a 'substantial body' of mainstream climatologists.

I quoted the extensive literature review here: Nov 20, 2011 at 5:15 PM

You what?

- One Chinese paper by authors no-one's heard of

- Muller, who has stated that AGW is real and largely responsible for modern warming

- Michaels, a notorious pocketer of oil money

- Stott, an emeritus something-or-other from SOAS with zero professional expertise on climate

- Curry being controversial (ooh!)

That's only an 'extensive literature review' to someone like you, matthu.

And you wonder why I treat you increasingly as a joke.

Since matthu was confused by the IPCC definition of CC and didn't understand my clarification the first time round, here it is again:

The uncontroversial IPCC definition of CC:

Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.

In other words, climate change can be caused by natural internal processes or external forcings or anthropogenic alteration of atmospheric composition/surface albedo.

This is not equivalent to your interpretation (emphasis added):

So it appears that (unspecified) natural causes and/or changes in land use are both right up there with other potential causes. The alternate hypothesis is being rewritten even as we speak. this can only be a good thing and is likely to widen the consensus.

The IPCC is not saying: modern CC is being caused as much by natural causes and LUC as by RF from CO2. That's just you pushing your 'sceptical' agenda in the face of the facts.

Quack! Quack! Quack!

Dung

I should have made clear that the extract was from:
Climate Change Reconsidered – 2011 Interim Report

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You do know the difference between the NIPCC and the IPCC... don't you?

You seriously misrepresent HvS and Bray.

For an insight into the probable source of your distortions, and for the truth about the survey, see here, in HvS' own words.

And you really did miss the important message:

What has recently decreased is the “legitimation” of the IPCC as representing this consensus, because in recent years an opposition has formed which asserts that the IPCC is underestimating the severity of the change (see Bray, 2010).

What a totally wretched mess of a comment.

Other readers may simply wish to note that the Chinese paper quoted above (by authors BBD has not heard of) is an

extensive literature review

The Peter Stott that BBD did not recognise isa climate scientist and Manager of Understanding and Attributing Climate Change at the UK Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, U.K

BBD
You can take what you like — you usually do — and if you ask I'll tell you where to put it.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to plough my way through your maunderings which are invariably a re-hash of your previous blinkered complaints that everybody except you is wrong, lying, cheating, dishonest, blind, and stupid.
I've already said that you can challenge me (or anyone else) on the science. What you cannot do and maintain any credibility is assert that your interpretations are always the right ones and pointedly insult anyone who dares to disagree with you.
Unfortunately it appears you are unable to understand that and I'm not sure how we can convince you that taking a different point of view from you might make us wrong; it does not make us stupid or give you the right to be quite as ill-mannered as you are.

DNFTT

Mike Jackson

I have neither the time nor the inclination to plough my way through your maunderings which are invariably a re-hash of your previous blinkered complaints that everybody except you is wrong, lying, cheating, dishonest, blind, and stupid.

You had the time and the inclination to write a long, hostile comment at Nov 20, 2011 at 1:29 PM. So, I will take this a further confirmation that everything I said in response at Nov 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM - every statement, every challenge - is correct and unopposed by yourself.

This conversation is now over.

BBD

You are correct, my quote was indeed from NIPCC and it was my error for which I apologise. I quote instead from the actual IPCC interim report:
Natural Variability To Dominate Weather Events Over Coming 20-30 Years
Friday, 18 November 2011 14:34 administrator
E-mail Print PDF

GWPF Press Release - London - 18 November 2011

For many decades to come, and probably longer, mankind’s influence on the frequency of extreme weather events will be insignificant.

According to a preliminary report released by the IPCC, there will be no detectable influence of mankind’s influence on the Earth’s weather systems for at least thirty years, and possibly not until the end of this century.

matthu

I reiterate, one Chinese paper by authors nobody's heard of changes absolutely nothing.

I do apologies for muddling the Stotts - it must be because you referenced Philip Stott - the one with zero expertise but loudly contrarian views - at Nov 18, 2011 at 6:51 PM.

And you are still DNFTT-ing! You do yourself no favours, but it does keep me laughing ;-)

I've got your measure, good and proper.

Quack! Quack!

Dung

According to a preliminary report released by the IPCC, there will be no detectable influence of mankind’s influence on the Earth’s weather systems for at least thirty years, and possibly not until the end of this century.

Rubbish, as usual. Don't get your information from disinformers like the GWPF.

From the IPCC SREX Fact Sheet:

Changing extreme events

—Observations since 1950 show changes in some extreme events, particularly daily temperature extremes, and heat waves.

—It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation will increase in the 21st century over many regions.

—It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur throughout the 21st century on a global scale. It is very likely—90 per cent to 100 per cent probability—that heat waves will increase in length, frequency, and/or intensity over most land areas.

—It is likely that the average maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones (also known as typhoons or hurricanes) will increase throughout the coming century, although possibly not in every ocean basin. However it is also likely—in other words there is a 66 per cent to 100 per cent probability—that overall there will be either a decrease or essentially no change in the number of tropical cyclones.

—There is evidence, providing a basis for medium confidence, that droughts will intensify over the coming century in southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa. Confidence is limited because of definitional issues regarding how to classify and measure a drought, a lack of observational data, and the inability of models to include all the factors that influence droughts.

—It is very likely that average sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme sea levels in extreme coastal high water levels.

—Projected precipitation and temperature changes imply changes in floods, although overall there is low confidence at the global scale regarding climate-driven changes in magnitude or frequency of river related flooding, due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex.

I've also wasted enough time on you. This conversation is now over.