Why Monty and his chums need to take sceptics seriously.

Do we hand over all our decision making to experts in other fields? Do we have a financial adviser to manage our bank account, an accountant to do our tax, a doctor on hand for every little headache, a chauffeur, a chef, a life coach, a stylist…? The public have a pesky habit of wanting to do some stuff for themselves and only turn to experts when the problem is too big. Even then people reserve the right to decide for themselves.

Then CAGW comes along and the public are supposed to nod and hand over a big cheque so that the panicky can spend it on stuff that largely doesn’t work. Scientists even get outraged that they could be questioned, let alone feel the need to be open and honest about the answers. At the same time warmists don’t notice that the majority of people aren’t even questioning climate science, they’re ignoring it altogether. And they think we’re stupid?

It’s time they stopped acting like they’re Moses bringing the tablets down from the mountain. They need to look to other, more reputable sciences, how they get past natural human suspicion and ‘because the scientists say so’ isn’t it. That journalists and politicians have bought uncritically into the science only demonstrates how gullible people can be when they let their imagination run ahead of their common sense... assuming politics and journalism graduates do common sense.

First reason why the science needs an overhaul – warmist lie. Monty even managed it with his 97% consensus comment. Even if you ignored the shenanigans of how they get that figure, there is an implied narrative behind it that embraces all the catastrophic visions of the future that have been linked to consensus in the media. Scientists seem very good at fence sitting when asked to specify exactly is going to happen, nowhere near 97%. You’d almost think they didn’t know /sarc.

Sceptics don’t have to prove that climate science is wrong, we only have to convince people that the purveyors of the consensus tend to be liars. Human nature does the rest. Trying to shut us up will only help us in the long run because while sceptics mostly don't believe in conspiracy theories, the public just lap them up.

Monty,

As a real climate scientist you will be aware of the decelerating trend in sea-level rise, the no-change in polar ice, no increase in weather extremes [a relative late-comer to indicators] and the decade and a half stasis in global surface temperatures. All of these are observations, recorded and readily available for anyone to come across be they arts graduates or the more technically literate such as engineers or scientists of other disciplines. For those, could you kindly point out where global warming can be observed to be happening outside of both natural variation and computerised models? This would be of immense help as I for one, having seen some, would be much more amenable to believing that climate science was other than an esoteric pastime entirely reliant upon huge quantities of other peoples' money to benefit no more than its practitioners and the parasitic engaged in the implementing of its edicts.

Thank you.

I don't know what Monty is referring to when he says would you let an Eng Lit graduate discuss climate science with a climate scientist. It doesn't make sense, so Monty if you could perhaps elaborate on what exactly you mean I'd be v.grateful. You quote Lawson and Peiser and indeed Lilley, but you don't seem to be aware that they don't challenge the IPCC reports, in fact they're not allowed to by the BBC - see interview with Peter Lilley.

The problem you have, and don't seem able to grasp, is that once science moves into politics and starts dictating policies that have no regard for the costs and damage to human beings living today you've crossed a line that means English Lit graduates, or indeed check out girls and boys, have every right to challenge the implications of your science. And as they pay your wages you may want to show them a little bit of respect.

There was nobody challenging eugenics, which was a plausible scientific theory, nor indeed, with the single exception of Pius XI did any leader of any faith, or political party raise their voices against.Science had spoken. In fact the supporters where the forebears of the bien pensants who are major supporters of CAGW policies today. Which, ironically given the context of this debate, where foisted on us by the 2008 Climate Change Act written by an English Lit Grad, without any engineering input, and roundly supported by the climate science community.

I don't believe you're a climate scientist, or a scientist of any kind, maybe a graduate physicist unable to come to terms with the fact that the oicks have the temerity to argue with you about the science. That's how you come across anyway.

In addition to the evident shock you have that your science shouldn't be challenged by those who haven't studied it (see Eugenics above), you clearly don't understand what you're being told by the deniers so I'll re-iterate it for you

1. Apart from mydogsgotonenote I know of nobody on this blog, or in the wider scepticsphere who doesn't know that CO2 is a GHG. Yet you seem to believe this is one of the legs of the chair of scepticism;
2. Nobody I know denies that an increase in CO2 will cause a rise in temperature.

The diversion is as follows just so you understand

3. You have a climate sensitivity number of 3C which is clearly wrong, and indeed originated as a guess in the Charney report;
4. Even if the 3C is right, which I doubt and can doubt because when you guess something you don't have to be qualified in anything, you cannot predict the future state of the climate. To suggest you can, or come anywhere near to being right is hubristic beyond shame. If as Jiminy and the IPCC have pointed out you cannot predict the future state of a coupled non-linear chaotic system then WTF are you all doing telling us we'll be having droughts, storms, sea level rises etc. etc. when you couldn't possibly have the remotest clue? No one can foretell the future and frankly, only an idiot would believe they could.
5. You don't need a PhD in anything to understand that when global temperatures increase there will be no upside, just famine, pestilence, wars and death stalking the land, your being sold a line by someone who wants control through fear.

I find the concept of "climate scientist" an interesting one and get a sense that such an individual must be a generalist of sorts. Climate science encompasses a range of fields from physics to chemistry and geology and much in-between.

Similar I guess to doctors whose field encompasses a wide range of integrated fields from physiology to pharmacology with the possible exception to anatomy being a specific area of expertise.(In the past that was pretty much their ONLY field of expertise).

Monty, may we know what area of climate science you work in? Physics?chemistry? etc.

At this juncture I am having some difficulty accepting your own assertion of what you do. I am resisting using the word "troll" in your particular case but the markers seem to be present.

Can you see why?

What would you own falsifiability criteria be for the theory of AGW to be disproved?

Thank you.

Typo

The possible exception OF anatomy...

DOH! (Speaking of which I am drinking tea right now from a Homer Simpson mug which has written on it "I couldn't agree more with whatever you said"......)...

OK, it's one of those "you had to be there" things to get the irony I guess?....

I'll get my coat...

Geronimo, regarding your points 1 and 2, do you actually read this blog? You just have to look at the 1st page of the "Greenhouse Effect" discussion to find four people who seem to be far from convinced of the GHE.

stewgreen: "So any relationship between CO2 and temperature has NOT been VALIDATED. "

RKS: ...not worth the bother working out what he is saying but I think he would argue with you.

Ross Lea: provides links to principia-scientifica such as "Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf"

ssat: looks sceptical but I can't be bothered to work out more.

And then you get people who suggest that CO2 might have different characteristics in the wild compared to lab measurements.

When you say:

> 5. You don't need a PhD in anything to understand that
> when global temperatures increase there will be no upside,
> just famine, pestilence, wars and death stalking the land,
> your being sold a line by someone who wants control
> through fear.

Is that what you believe or what you think Monty believes. It goes against the normal sceptic dogma.

Hi Chandra

My own understanding of point 5 is what geronimo thinks the opposing side thinks we should think?....

I think......er...

.

Now, Monty, I just have to ask how you can possibly reconcile your assertion that you are a climate scientist with your statement that "the science is settled"? You must, I hope, surely see that simultaneously holding those two positions is not valid?

You will have carefully studied most of the threads in recent times and know that my motivations do not revolve around a deeper "activism" for the subject but I am an interested (and yes, unqualified) bystander who is also being asked to dig very deep indeed to support current policies which I have no say in either way as such matters are decided within circles that I suspect NONE who grace these pages are party to.

I hope you feel able to reply in a manner the befits civil discourse please.

I call bulltweet,

Personal view is that Monty is no more a "Climate Scientist", by whatever definition you care to use, than I am the pope.

Monty says,

Well I am a climate scientist with a large number of peer-reviewed publications in the world's leading journals in my field. I have a PhD in a climate science and have taught at several of the world's leading universities.

Really? Quite incredible to think, given the quality of your argument and sarcastic comments.

Then again Monty, I'm Brian and so's my wife.

Mike

Quite. Of course he isn't but I am hoping that he can still engage meaningfully but my sense at this point is that a personal embarrassment will prevent a more honest debate.

Options would seem to include just owning up or engagement in the current vein or disengagement.

A pity really as I am quite sure that Monty is fundamentally a sound enough human being.

I've met very very many unsound ones over the years and I wouldn't stoop to denigrate by calling him this anyway.

All fascinating stuff and frankly (if I could be bovvered...) I could write a paper on the subject of climate debate discourse ...but not in the "deniers are all conspiracy theorists" mold..!

Ah well....

By the way, if you ever do actually become Pope please can I have access to the sealed archives? (I'd be particularly interested in the Galileo material) I'll slip you a few used tenners in a brown paper bag...(hey, if it's good enough for the Borgias then it's good enough for you...)

Micky H. The go to paper for the "proof" that CO2 is a GHG is Harries et al 2001. In the paper they demonstrate that as the CO2 has increased the the OLR spectrum has shown a reduction of radiation in the 4 and 15 micron range. So if you accept this paper, and I do, then CO2 is absorbing and re-emitting energy.

You have to be careful as to what I'm admitting, i.e, that CO2 is a GHG, I don't have any position other than CO2 is a GHG, beyond that it is my opinion that nobody has a clue what the climate is doing.

I too find mdgnn tantalising close to proving something but you know what? I go with Rutherford and believe that if you can't explain your theory to a barmaid it probably isn't very good physics.

Having said all that I don't want to waste time arguing something that the world and its mate accept, whether it's true, or false, that CO2 is a GHG, when the climate sensitivity and soothsayer sides of the argument are so clearly easy to win. Except, of course, if you're talking to the converted.

Martin A. I have no idea, but I'd bet my pension Monty isn't a scientist. I get the impression that. like others before him/her he's assumed that the propaganda he' s been fed is true, so they turn up on sceptic sites expecting to run rings around a bunch of right-wing, undeducated, unscientific bigots with their SkS handbook "Catastrophe Made Easy".

Only this time instead of trolling he's pretended to be a bona fide scientists in the hope that we'd swallow it. To be honest I've spent a number of years in academia and there are the usual bunch of personality types, but one thing they all shared was a knowledge of their topics which seems lacking in Monty's case.

Very much seconded geronimo.

I probably have a degree of naivety in hoping that they might still tone down the rhetoric and just have an honest chat whilst fully realising that the human mindset can be a rather concrete thing.

Martin A, I referred to Geronimo's points 1 and 2:

> 1. Apart from mydogsgotonenote I know of nobody on this
> blog, or in the wider scepticsphere who doesn't know that
> CO2 is a GHG. Yet you seem to believe this is one of the
> legs of the chair of scepticism;

and

> 2. Nobody I know denies that an increase in CO2 will cause
> a rise in temperature.

I think it is clear from my four quotes and from subsequent comments on this thread that some people take issue with 1 and/or 2. How Geronimo has managed to miss this in all the time he has been a contributor here is unclear.

Later you said:

> someone who has taken (for example) a three year BSc
> course in molecular physics ... understands the subject
> pretty well. Enough to make a living writing software for
> molecular synthesis, something you couldn't do if you have
> only begun to understand the subject.

How deeply do you believe that? I would expect a suitable (selecting from the whole set) new grad would have enough knowledge to join a team writing such software, where the grad wrote small parts of the software and the team provided significant support and guidance. Gradually, over some years, I would expect the grad to become more experienced and after perhaps three or four years to be a solid team member, maybe even lead a small team. However, I would be rather surprised if many new graduates could, on their own, make a living in such a manner without that period of post-grad training.

"And yes Co2 does absorb and re-emit but whether this actually results in net heating? Well I'm of the opinion if it were obvious then we'd have the reference and experiment."

I know there's a spectrum of opinion on this, but most sceptics accept that there will be heating from a GHG, but as you've spotted, probably because you took your science education beyond GCSE level, that a rise in temperature because of GHG doesn't necessarily mean a net increase in temperature.Martin A and I've said it, the increase in temperature caused by CO2 is just as likely to cause net cooling because of the increase in cloud cover that may, or may not, accompany the increase in water vapour.

So it's pretty easy to accept that the warming caused by CO2 increase would not necessarily finish up with net warming.