Judging the quality of a table is within everyday experience of most people. Judging a scientific explanation is not. To understand Salby's lecture, good maths and quite high scientific literacy are needed. To spot errors in his reasoning and logic (or that of SkS), a much deeper understanding is necessary. Without the necessary skills, the Dunning Kruger effect beckons.

You didn't confirm that your distaste for attacks on Mann and Jones matches your outrage at attacks on Salby.

In all cases of which I am aware, criticisms of Jones/Mann center upon their scientific output and how they have developed, presented, defended, and/or not properly SUBSTANTIATED that work.

I think there has also been criticism of their behaviour with respect to reviewing of papers for publication and making life difficult for authors/editors publishing stuff they did not agree with. In view of their role as leading IPCC authors, such criticisms are also legitimate.

I have never seen anyone refer to details of Mann's divorce proceedings, let alone publish or provide pointers to court papers.

Martin, as I said, I am not competent to help. But there are several here who consider Salby's work ground-breaking. It is probable therefore that they have analysed Salby's maths and confirmed its accuracy, have gone through the process of analysing the SkS and other arguments and have found the logical flaws that you seek. That is what a sceptic would do to overthrow an accepted science, isn't it? I am surprised that they have not chipped in to help.

Regarding Salby's legal history, people should not be so pious. It is impossible to imagine, given the intensity of feeling towards Mann and Jones exhibited on various blogs, that if there had been any dirt to dig up on the two it would not have been front page news and the center of any discussion of the pair for weeks, months or years on Bishop Hill, WUWT etc. The fact that there hasn't been such discussion is probably because there is nothing to find, not because you all felt it was somehow off limits.

Salby _invited_ scrutiny with public accusations against his university. His version of events then became ever less credible the more that was learnt of him. And revelations about his private life are not distracting attention from his scientific theories as you suggest. His theory has received plenty of attention, including unconditional applause from some of you and derision from some scientists.

Dung, I am rubbishing nobody, just asking you and others to justify your faith in a theory that has no scientific support. If you lack the knowledge to understand Salby's ideas or to find holes in the consensus counter arguments, then you are supporting the theory just because you'd like it to be true. Don't pretend 'scepticism'.

Dung wants my opinion. Which theory do I support? Well the question is the cause of the rise in CO2 and there are two options, the consensus (it's anthropogenic) and Salby. It seems unnecessary to spell it out, but if I must, I favour the consensus.

Martin,

- I asked people to justify their faith in a theory that has no scientific support.

and you reply that

- Theories of atmospheric physics don't depend on "scientific support" to decide whether they are valid or not.

Do you really think I said that scientific support is necessary to determine whether Salby's theory is valid or not? I think your English is better than that. These two are quite different.

Salby's theory might or might not be valid. I cannot judge, and though you seem to be the most mathematically and scientifically capable here, I think neither can you. Unless I misjudged other posters, this means that they have faith in a theory they don't understand. There is nothing wrong with that per se. I can believe theories that I don't understand because I know that, of the people who do understand, all believe them to be true. In other words the theories have scientific support (even though they might be wrong). However if people believe Salby without understanding and verifying, they are on their own (except for Salby presumably). Salby might be right of course but people are just displaying faith, not making a rational choice in believing him over the view that the rise in CO2 has an anthropogenic cause. Hence my desire for them to justify that faith.

My earlier question asking people to justify their faith in temperature and CO2 records from several hundred thousand year old ice cores in contrast to their dismissal of any analysis of the last few millennia using similar techniques (or of thermometers) remains unanswered, so I will not hold my breath for an answer to this question.

Mr Dung, I answered you in the first paragraph of my 8:27PM post. I identified the question and gave my answer. I don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.

On there being no consensus, that is silly. There is clearly agreement amongst climate scientists that the rise in atmospheric CO2 has an anthropogenic source (why would Salby's theory be 'ground-breaking' - or whatever the term was - if not). A similarly overwhelming majority will agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will agree what that means. And they will also agree that increasing concentrations of CO2 will change the equilibrium state of the planet towards warming. They will probably not agree exactly to what extent the planet will warm and how fast as a result of the changing CO2 level.

"And they will also agree that increasing concentrations of CO2 will change the equilibrium state of the planet towards warming."

Anybody know what that means?

Dungy you're wasting your keystrokes with someone who believes that "nullius in verba" is nonsense, and can't do hard sums.

Rhoda was right.

Missy
Theory: The CO2 added to the global atmosphere is the MAIN cause of the increase in global temperatures.
Test empirical measurement of global temperatures show that no rise has occurred for 17 + years whilst the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise. Therefore the human increase in CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be the MAIN or any significant drive of global temperature increase. Theory FAILLS by empirical measurement.

Mr Dung, you answer what you would prefer had been said rather than what was actually said. I made no mention of polls or percentages or even of 'main' causes (Ross Lea). Read again what I said at 11:40 last night, it was circumscribed and clear. If you or the one who yawns are challenged by the meaning of that post, you have no chance of understanding Salby.

So please explain your faith.

Missy
I do not have a “faith” I leave that to others. I have an opinion based on empirical evidence. Currently I have read TAXING AIR by Prof. Bob Carter et al. He lists not just one but six empirical test that the current theory of MGW has failed. What is the empirical evidence on which you base your faith that man-made emissions of CO2 are the principle driver of Global Warming. ?

Mr D, the facts I listed at 11:40PM (Ross Lea, they are sufficient) are so basic that they would probably gain the support of most readers of this blog, let alone that of climate scientists.

Mr D, as far as I'm aware I have answered your questions.

Why would readers bother to support me? I stated some basic science, understood for many years, which few would be silly enough to reject. But I understand there are various anti-science blogs where your kind of thinking is de rigueur (wattsupwiththat.com seems to be an example of such), so maybe you would be happier there.

"But I understand there are various anti-science blogs where your kind of thinking is de rigueur (wattsupwiththat.com seems to be an example of such)..."

Missy is the thieving fraudster, much lauded in the alarmist community, Peter Gleick and I claim my £5.00.