Geronimo, Mickey, Martin A

My position sounds like your general view. CO2 absorbs, is a ghg gas in the lab/theory, but what is the overall effect in the complex system that is the atmosphere? Could be small, can't be large (probably ruled out by poor model predictions/hiatus).

And Monty as a climate scientist? Seems implausible to me. Shallow, mrepetitive arguments. Entropic Man said he ws a teacher and that seemed entirely consistent with somewhat bombastic/pedagogue style. Got rather like RC of late (diversion by misleading references).

Where is EM anyway? EM disappears, Monty appears? Sock puppets anyone?

ThinkingScientist
I remember when the BBC allowed comments on the majority of environment stories there was an Entropic man who posted there in a similar vain to our EM. I also seem to remember he often had conversations with a poster called MangoChutney.

Therefore I think he was/is an individual who lost interest in arguing here and will turn up somewhere else when refreshed.

Martin, perhaps I responded to the wrong point:

> My point was to illustrate that Monty's [statement] is
> just rubbish.

Monty's statement was

> A complicated (and complex) science needs years of
> training to even begin to understand it (like all
> sciences). Which is why it is ludicrous when English
> graduates pontificate about something they haven't got a
> chance of understanding.

You choose to refute this by talking about a new science graduate being able to apply his learning fresh from uni. But Monty is clearly talking about a graduate in English with no scientific training, not even basic undergrad level. This has no connection with what you are arguing.

Doubtless an English grad can write his opinions beautifully - that is the direct equivalent application of experience. But Monty is referring to knowledge of science, of which the English grad can be assumed in general to know nothing (relatively speaking). I cannot see how you can seriously argue that the English grad can pick up climate science in less than many years of study. Would you expect such an English grad to perform well as even a junior engineer after less than three years of retraining? Would you employ such a person?

You can see such non-science people struggling to pretend they understand what they are talking about on this blog (just like Chandra, people will say, but note that I make it clear what I understand and what I don't). You have people here who think putting the lid on a kettle is an example of positive feedback or that convection is in and of itself a negative climate feedback. Do you think Lawson or Peiser or Delingpole know any better? Can you be sure that Montford or Lord Whatshisname do? Would you suggest that I should take seriously the engineering views of an engineer who didn't understand feedback? Why should I take seriously the climate science views of an English graduate who is similarly handicapped? Maybe feedback is not such an important issue for understanding climate science, but when sceptics say words to the effect of 'it is all about sensitivity', I find that unlikely.

Martin A, Sandy S, Thinking scientist

Thanks for your concern. I was getting too OCD and thought it best to disengage for a while.

Be assured that Monty is not my sock puppet. :-)

Hi Chandra

I've been watching closely the evolving thread. I've also been holding back on contributing. You're not doing too badly if you want or need such feedback?!

I'm certainly glad you're not being needled anywhere near as much as in prior threads. You have felt this I hope.?

I have to second the question by Martin about your own view of Monty?. You might be instinctively on the same so-called "side" but clear qualitative differences exist in both manner and approach and trust me when I say that a "friend" can just as easily drag one under as keep one afloat.

I will re-iterate to you that I truly do not "expect" you to be one way or the other. Just argue your point if you think it right on a position and (as you certainly have) just say "I dunno" if you don't know (that only gains respect from reasonable people). Many here who will have the detailed knowledge of such may well try to guide in an area you cite a lack of knowledge of. If you still disagree, fair enough. What a bloody boring world this would be if it was monotone.

I hope you are still inwardly digesting as well???!!!

Cheers old boy/girl (I dunno.....wouldn't harm to clarify for us/me?...I'm a chappie by the way.)

Andy

… when English graduates pontificate about something they haven't got a chance of understanding.

...would you expect the BBC to have a debate between the world's leading geneticists and an English or classics graduate?

You claim to be a scientist, yet cleave to the mantra of the “97% consensus” as if it were your religion. Are you not aware that history is littered with great scientists who bucked the consensus? I wonder where we would be, today, had the all-important consensus prevailed in their day?

Dang! I hadn't realised how long this thread was until I copied to post this!

…Imagine the BBC had a debate about climate change and had Richard Lindzen on the 'skeptic' side and an English graduate representing the 'warmists'. How would you 'skeptics' react?

You can just imagine the hilarity at WUWT and Bishop Hill can't you....you'd all be sneering about an English graduate possibly debating with a meteorologist like Lindzen.

Odd, then when the opposite occurs!

I, for one, would love to see the BBC put on any kind of debate about this farce. The simple fact is, though, that many other stations have attempted to, to have the AGWistas shunning the opportunity, positively fleeing the chance for discussion.

Thanks.

Hi EM, with you on the OCD front, I too would benefit from a rest. I didn't believe Monty was you sock puppet but as a practising engineer whose spent time doing (and funding) research he doesn't seem like a scientist to me. What about you? See you when you return to the fray.

Entropic man
Good to see you are monitoring the theories and hypothesis being discussed here and elsewhere on BH ;-)

MartinA,
I think you are over looking what is possibly ore likely:
That Monty represents the best in climate science.
Think of how, in his recent sciam article, D.r Mann demonstrated an inability to count, confusing three with one.
Monty may be all palsy with Mann and Jones, etc. for all we know. He would likely fit right in, from what we have seen of his writing.
What would be interesting would be for any of the trolls to state clearly what they think the climate is doing now and what they expect it do to the weather in the next 10, 20 and 50 years. IOW, instead of endlessly repeating how cynical, evil stupid and corrupt we are, tell us about themselves.

Martin, I presume your objection is to the word 'begin' but I think you are being pedantic. If we went to the opposite extreme and said that a newly minted BSc in molecular physics knows all there is to know about molecular physics, I imagine you would agree that to be stupid. So the truth lies between these extremes. I imagine Monty would say that your new grad is at the beginning of that journey, not at the end, whether or not he can successfully apply what he already knows. Just like an apprentice carpenter who is taught to make a few joints can use those joints to make a table - it doesn't make him a master carpenter.

On Monty's status, I have no idea and I don't really care. Just like you, earlier:

> But in any case, who cares what a person's qualifications
> are if they talk sense about the subject they are talking
> about.

Your collective interest in Monty's status indicates you do indeed care. You even want to know the opinion of someone (me) who has admitted to being an ignoramus. Status is important to people here, despite denials, for understandable reasons. Posters, most of whom are no more able to judge or 'refute' climate science than I, need a source of authority. I have mine - the thousands of climate scientists who study the subject. But sceptics reject and/or defame almost all authorities who by academic position can be assumed to know the subject thoroughly which leaves them grasping for 'scientific' support for their political views. So anyone who says they are an "engineer" or some such becomes somehow credible (and it doesn't even matter that the "engineer" doesn't understand feedback - the English lit grad sure as hell doesn't so they can pretend to each other that they know what they are talking about).

Chandra, you have patently no idea what becoming and being an engineer actually involves. And no, I am not going to justify that to you. Just be aware the more words you add showing how well thought out are your arguments, the more ignorant you appear. Do not extend yourself too far. That is an engineer's opinion.

thinkingscientist
You forgot Dana Nuccitelli