I expect that a 'skeptic' camp will form within mainstream opinion, and that early defectors will go there, not here. There's a chance that the Judith Curry / Tamsin axis is already an embryonic establishment skeptical camp, but if that doesn't develop into a proper one, then one will form eventually. I think that while we have been carrying the torch for science during these dark days, I'm completely happy to hand it back to science once it regains its balance.

Any small part we have played in this, I'm glad of the side I was on when it was hardest to be there.

Mike Jackson, only TheBigYinJames thinks counting degrees is necessary. I have no degree relevant to climate science, like most of those here I suspect. My answer to Geronimo was clear. The point he raises is a red herring.

I'm just passing through, don't sweat it. The website of an author who celebrates a positive review from a 9-11 truther is not a place to stay for long.

Jiminy Cricket, I said nothing of the qualities of the 'opposition'. I was commenting on the likelihood of people here appreciating humour. Your knee-jerk, "they are worse than us", or words to that effect, just confirm my proposition.

Richard Drake, "It's the time-wasting that so often goes with dealing with the kind of nym who won't even tell you what their degree was in that has always been part of my issue in this area." . I already said it was a branch of engineering (Aug 25 at 3:11 PM) and I see no qualitative difference between that description and 3-degrees' "hard science".

Although as discussed you all wont appreciate it, but it is comic that some of you are so keen on science being the foundation of what you all do (3-degrees for sure and I think I saw TinyCO2 make a similar suggestion elsewhere). You are so quick to jump on the 'trapping' of CO2 as beyond the pale, the 'truth' being that it merely delays it for a very long time (which is sooo different), yet you gladly suffer fools who suggest that CO2 causes the atmosphere to cool (or some such nonsense). As I said, science is not the focus here, only quarrelling about those parts of science you dislike.

If you make toast, it raises the temperature of your house.

FACT.

Deny that and you deny basic physics.

And you keep making toast.

Therefore you are going to melt.

1001, only passing through? I am so glad you deigned us with your presence.

I care about good climate science 1001 because it matters, What is done here is not science, it is personal opinion. It does not need to be good or bad. If it convinces people, then it does so because the main stream science is so poor. I despise warmists because they whine and snipe at sceptics when it is their own pathetic side they need to look to.

TinyCO2, "I care about good climate science 1001 because it matters, What is done here is not science, it is personal opinion. It does not need to be good or bad. "

Are you a little confused? You care about "good" climate science, but opinion here (predominantly about climate science) need not be be "good". In other words, "bad" climate science is perfectly ok here as long as it is just someone's opinion.

Those who care about good ("correct") science should be offended by the "bad" (incorrect) variety passed off as fact and should correct it, even if the people proffering it are friends. On the other hand, those who care more about the politics than the science will tolerate "bad" science as long as it forwards their cause. It is clear where you and your friends here stand. If there is a choice between the politics and the science, the science loses at Bishop Hill.

Climate scientists are being paid to come to conclusions on supposedly the most important issue facing mankind. A huge amount of money and opportunities to advance are being wagered on their theories. We might even be facing CAGW and those in charge of convincing the World are a joke. The people here are private, unpaid citizens and can say what they like, as can you. We are not important but if even one piece of decent criticism emerges from the noise, it needs to be addressed by the consensus. Considerably more than one point has been raised and climate science and its camp followers pretend they haven't heard them. The more that people like you turn a deaf ear to the good arguments the poorer you make the case for action. You debase your own side. Why don't you think that is important?

You people have so little awareness about what cutting CO2 requires that you think you can win by school ground tactics of name calling and trying to make us the school dunce. Well to win, we only have to persuade the public to do what they want to. That's not hard at all. We don't need to be perfect but your side does. 'But that's not fair!' I hear you whine. No, it's not. Get over it. If you want to achive a miracle you need to act like a saint.

TinyCO2, "The more that people like you turn a deaf ear to the good arguments the poorer you make the case for action. You debase your own side. Why don't you think that is important? "

So which good arguments are those? If you want influence you do need to present good arguments. That isn't done with a babble of contradictory statements that can/will be interpreted as incoherent noise to which nobody is likely to listen. Your willingness to tolerate and even welcome "bad" science is detrimental to your supposed aims. Positive criticism (of climate science) is good and would be (perhaps grudgingly) accepted. Sniping by a bunch of politically motivated apparent know-nothings will be ignored (however clever some of you are).

"You people have so little awareness about what cutting CO2 requires that you think you can win by school ground tactics of name calling and trying to make us the school dunce."

To win? You misunderstand or have been mislead. For me, and I think probably for most of those concerned about climate change, "winning" would be if you and your friends are right. What we are really afraid of is that you are badly wrong.

My position:-

I think that cutting CO2 is incredibly difficult and would require a huge amount of co-operation and the evidence to drive such a mammoth task would need to be outstanding. By supporting the sceptic side I hope to achieve a delay in piddling money down the drain on solutions that clearly do very little and hoping that either cutting CO2 will prove unnecessary or better solutions will emerge; a chance to see what the planet does with the increased CO2 since the scientists don’t seem good at predicting things; a chance for climate science to stop pissing about and start acting like a professional body with major responsibilities and perhaps look like something we could put our trust in.

Ranged against my goal I see smug, secure, lazy, careless, clique forming, financially motivated, arrogant, stupid, organisations/individuals who want things to stay as they are or even go more in their favour. With that in mind I am quite content to use any tactics that work. Happy in the knowledge that the worst I can do is leave things as they are now. Since I don't see this as a life or death issue right now, I put in as much or as little effort as I can be bothered. Yes, my side could be better but nobody's offering any incentive.

What's the excuse for your side's dismal efforts?

As for evidence there is only one that matters - CO2 is not falling, just the opposite. From that I can conclude that the vast majority of people are not convinced by the science of CAGW *. Disprove that.

Why do you give your support to something that is already failing?

* FYI it is possible to cut CO2 without laws or taxes or government policy but first you have to want to.

The BBC has turned me off its science and wildlife programmes by using them to broadcast warming propaganda. Another example came up this morning, when Jim Al-Khalili was trailing his "Life Scientific " radio programme.

He said he would be talking to Joanna Hague of Imperial College about her work on measuring the sun and its output.

"Good," I thought, "That should be interesting."

"And I'll be hearing about how she deals with climate deniars," he added.

Well done, BBC. Another stupid insult that illustrates how standards of science broadcasting have descended to the gutter.Another BBC programme I shall avoid.

1001: Looks like you got it about "trapping" heat", so you've moved the goal posts to it being delayed for a very long time. You've probably never heard of Kevin Trenberth but he is a past master on "heat trapping" being convinced that there should be more heat in the atmosphere than there actually is. He is one of the leading scientists in the CAGW scientific camp, and while I realise you believe we shouldn't challenge our "betters" (which clearly doesn't apply to yourself) he has come up with a very interesting theory as to where the heat went. Of course, nobody knows, but using Occam's Razor, the most obvious solution to the "missing heat" problem is that it didn't get here in the first place with good science to support it. Not for Dr. Trenberth though, because that hints at mechanisms that would limit climate sensitivity, so the eminent, omniscient Dr.Trenberth comes up with the theory that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans. Not only that it managed to get past 3000 Argo buoys which measure the temperature of the first 2000 meters at the top of the ocean. You probably don't have to have studied physics to be aware of the size of the improbability of heat getting to the bottom of the deep oceans without being dissipated in the journey, but hey he's a leading climate scientist who, like you believes we "trap" heat, or that it should be around for a very long time, and because the data don't agree with his theory he tells us the data are wrong. This is the quality of the science we're challenging on this site.

The difference in the diurnal temperatures between the deserts and the tropics tell us that CO2 isn't very good at "trapping" heat.

I think Hilary is right and 1001 hangs out in Dan Kahan's sphere. Neither of them seem to understand that warmists are the supplicants, they need to humbly ask for the near impossible, not demand it as their right. I can't decide if they don't realise the extent of what they ask for or they're so used to being pandered to that they imagine everyone should obey them like students anxious to curry favour with their examining lecturer. The real World must come as a terrible shock.

Schrodinger's Cat "The BBC has turned me off its science and wildlife programmes by using them to broadcast warming propaganda."

I agree completely. I used to love programmes about weather and wildlife but now I avoid them because I can't stant the trite moralising. I'm waiting for the day everything is linked to AGW. You stub your toe and it has been made more likely because of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Even the most casual observer must be getting weary of the specious connections. Desperation is so unappealing.

TinyCO2: so your adherence to this site stems from a belief that although warming might be true it is too difficult to do anything about. So you'll hope for the best.

"What's the excuse for your side's dismal efforts?"

Dismal "scientific" efforts? Are they dismal? It is an evolving science. Understanding of the earth systems improves continually.

Dismal efforts at convincing the public? There was a big discussion recently about whether climate scientists _should_ be attempting to convince the public. I didn't follow it much but I got the impression that those who oppose climate science say that scientists should stick to the science and leave proselytizing to others (ie. to people who don't understand the results). For those who hold that view, it would be odd to complain about scientists efforts at communication being dismal (except perhaps in the context of arguing that others could do it better).

But as you say, the task is huge. There are also many vested interests in favour doing nothing. Only when climate change causes some serious and undeniable events or effects will governments act (and I hope that the naysayers are right and there will be no such events).

"Why do you give your support to something that is already failing?"

I don't recognise that assertion.
--
Hilary Ostrov: it is quite possible for someone to be crazy and yet have lucid moments or thoughts. But if someone "formed an evidence-based opinion" on 9-11 and came to a crazy conclusion, then I personally would keep him at arms length. However, in your minority sport of whack-a-climate-scientist, you need to take support from wherever you can get it, so all-aboard crazies of the world, the Bishop is your daddy!
--
Geronimo: you've accumulated some talking points from hanging out here, but I doubt you understand them. And because nobody corrects what they know to be false, you have no idea how many of the "facts" you have "learned" are actually untrue. Start with the basics. Extra CO2 traps heat (oops sorry, delays heat's exit to space). We are adding extra CO2, therefore ... you take it from there. BTW Argo does not measure heat "passing through".
--
Mike Jackson: You have been inured to pseudo-science by absorbing the half-truths and outright falsehoods that circulate here as "fact". You ask for hard evidence but I doubt you would now recognise it.
--
Stewgreen: Your statements are what TinyCO2 would call "bad" science but as they are just your "opinion" and have no real relation to science they are welcome here and nobody will correct you.

BTW, you ask me to condemn "over-consumption" but that concept seems oxymoronic for the residents of this blog. Define what you consider over-consumption.