Raff,

As I've said before, we are a mixed bag here, and I won't apologise and harangue people for having offbeat views. We don't police the 'truth' here, this is not a science blog. If you choose to take the most ridiculous views and treat them as representative of climate scepticism, then that is bad faith on your part, and betrays your motivation to find the worst there is to find in order to confirm your own preconceptions. Shame on you.

"If you choose to take the most ridiculous views and treat them as representative of climate scepticism,..."

I took a view that is mainstream here, namely that CO2 is not a GHG or that CO2 might be a GHG in a bottle but not in the wild or variations on the theme. This is uncontroversial here, particularly the latter. If you disagree with it and consider those who express it as having ridiculous views (Radical, stewgreen, that's you) then it is you who is out of touch with scepticism.

If anyone is being dishonest it is you in trying to portray scepticism in your own image. This may not claim to be a science blog, but WUWT does (or others do on its behalf) and this sort of nonsense goes down well there. The readership of this blog overlaps with WUWT (witness stewgreen's link to Tisdale's piece).

Raff, calm down. Perhaps my definition of mainstream scepticism is in my own image, but that's only because I don't recognise people who claim un-scientific things as sceptics. If you think everyone who comes here is a sceptic just because they say they are, or because this is a nominally sceptical site, then you are sadly mistaken.

Now you lump in a disbelief in GH theory and a belief that it may not translate into a secular temperature rise in the same breath, as if they were both flavours of the same deluded argument. This is dishonest. There are many people who visit this site who don't believe in the GH effect, I've had numerous heated conversations with them, and personally I think they are wrong. More than that, I *know* they are wrong, because I understand physics far better than lay people, and many people here are lay people. I explain, but if they still don't want to see, then c'est la vie. People believe wrong stuff all the time.

There is a world of difference between that mistaken view about basic physics and the unwillingness to accept the idea that changing one parameter in a stochastic system will result in a proportional sustained change in one of the outputs of that system (an output, which is also an auto-correlated input to the system!)

You conflate the two deliberately, in a blatant association fallacy.

Your dishonesty belies your prejudice.

"mainstream here, namely that CO2 is not a GHG or that CO2 might be a GHG in a bottle but not in the wild or variations on the theme" Raff.

No, that's your impression. A common habit for warmists to create a strawman denier they can beat up.

"If you choose to take the most ridiculous views and treat them as representative of climate scepticism, then that is bad faith on your part" YBYJ

As I wrote before, Raff is giving us a masterclass in warmist behaviour.

TBYJ, it is ironic in a thread where people are claiming how they only have to whisper scepticism on a warmist site they are abused, snipped or banned, but here everyone is sooo polite, even to warmists, that in three comments to me you have accused me of dishonesty three times and prejudice once and have wished shame on me. But you and they probably don't understand irony.

I said nothing of temperature rises. I spoke of the belief that CO2 can somehow behave differently in the lab and in the open air. People claim that here and elsewhere, open your eyes (and you TinyCO2). It is such a stupid argument that any warmist blog receiving it should at the very least take the piss out of the poster without mercy.

stewgreen, just look at the abuse I have received from TBYJ or the naming of me and EM as "trolls" here if you think this place is polite. And if you think WUWT or CA are polite read what they say about Nick Stokes.

I am surprised that you don't know SoD, it is an excellent source of physics - even some here would agree with that. Open Mind is also excellent on statistics but you wouldn't like it - the 'expertise' of your favourite WUWT sources comes off very poorly. James' Empty Blog is always interesting and Moyhu is of course Nick Stokes blog.

I don't see the Guardian comments as NoScript blocks them and I never had the inclination to unblock. I like Phil Plait, but he has robust views about the anti climate science and anti-vaccination crowds so I imagine he takes no crap in the comments, although I have never seen them. SkS is SkS. It is a prime source of information on climate science and hence receives heavy attention from the sceptic sphere. I don't doubt that they receive oodles of "ridiculous views" (c TBYJ) from representatives of climate scepticism and have to filter them fairly thoroughly. The difference is that SkS is a reference resource, not a blog and they do not want readers to be presented with a confusing array of "ridiculous views" (c TBYJ) from representatives of climate scepticism - hence they must prune.

Judith Curry was a guest on EconTalk, a podcast by Russ Roberts (right wing economist). What she presented was full of sceptic talking points which Roberts lapped up, including a gratuitous laugh at the fate of polar bears. It was dreadful (you would have loved it). That rather coloured my opinion of her. And her blog has a reputation that matches what I gleaned from the podcast, so I don't go there.

Raff "that CO2 can somehow behave differently in the lab and in the open air".

No they don't mostly say that. They are aware, as you should be that the atmosphere is not a bell jar. Even warmists think the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is other than the value calculated in the lab. WTF do you think all the arguments about sensitivity are about?

And I agree with you that no sceptic web site is very welcoming to warmists (not including luke warmers like Judith Curry and the Blackboard), especially warmists who start threads like this one. You were being provocative, verging on offensive and not for the first time. Fine, that's your perogative but I'll remind you again, your side needs to win friends and influence people. That almost none of you finds the fortitude to be polite demonstrates your commitment to your cause.

Tiny, as someone said, you are a mixed bag. There's some with "ridiculous views" (© TBYJ) and others verging on sensible. The thing is, as you pride yourselves, anyone can say anything, no questions asked. Sceptics can say the most stupid things about electricity grids and those who know will turn the other way; people can claim to be engineers and then confuse putting lids on boiling kettles with feedback and those others who also claim to be engineers will utter not a squeak of protest; there are those who will deny physics based models any possibility of skill and yet show them an economic model that forecasts something they like and they just know it is right. And yes there are those who say that CO2 can somehow behave differently in the lab and in the open air. They are all sceptics - that is your pride and joy. Anyone can be a sceptic whatever they think, however ridiculous their views. Together you are one, that is your strength.

And so I can indeed point to sceptics and say they believe this, that or the other and I will be right. I can take my pick of stupid and there will be at least some who do believe it (whatever), and because you are all one I can tar you all with that brush. Now some may see themselves as a cut above the rest and disown their brethren as having ridiculous views, but you cannot separate yourselves. You are one. To become differentiated you have to do what science does, research, publish papers, debate, hold views up to proper scrutiny. But you can't do that, so you will remain one.

"Even warmists think the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is other than the value calculated in the lab. WTF do you think all the arguments about sensitivity are about?"

You will not find one warmist scientist who says that CO2 behaves differently between lab and open air. CO2 is IR active, punkt. In the real world there are feedbacks that modify the effect of extra CO2, whence comes sensitivity debates. If sceptics (see above for who I mean) said that the effect of CO2 is different in the atmosphere they would be in agreement with science. But they don't. If you don't like being tarred with that brush, that is tough. You are all one!

But you and they probably don't understand irony

Obviously, because we're all morons.

Raff, if you were a first time poster, I wouldn't call you dishonest, but you have been here a long time,
you have had time to absorb and understand and read various links and follow evidence. If you find
we're a bunch of idiots, then leave. But you choose to stay and sit on your assumed high horse tossing
out insults. That is not polite, so you can expect nothing less in return.

You will not find one warmist scientist who says that CO2 behaves differently between lab and open air.

There you go again, setting up a straw man which you can knock down. Nobody said that here either. There is a difference between CO2 in a bell jar when all other factors are controlled, and CO2 in the wild, when it is merely one of a multitude of factors which affect the same set of output parameters.

An electric fire in a bedroom in Hemel Hempstead is behaving exactly the same as the one outside at the north pole, but it does not mean they the air temperature 1m in front of them is going to be the same. You're claiming that it's nonsense to say the effects are different because "no scientist" is claiming the electric fires are behaving differently.
Of course CO2 behaves the same everywhere. WTF has that got to do with the effects of CO2?

The real irony here is that you are trying to intellectually topple people who are your intellectual superiors here.

Raff "In the real world there are feedbacks that modify the effect of extra CO2".

What else did you think I meant by the atmosphere is not a bell jar? Does it matter if you say 'A causes C' when what you really mean is 'A causes B which in turn causes C'? Fair enough, most people don't express it in perfect terms but then the term 'greenhouse effect' isn't exactly a precise explanation of what happens either. I'm sure we'd all be more precise if asked to give a presentation to world leaders or even the local school. While there will always be Sky Dragons, people who know very little or those who have come to doubt almost anything warmists have to say, most enduring sceptics know that CO2 (plus or minus other processes) has some, as yet unknown, effect.

Yes, you can tar us all with the same brush, you can play those games. I think Willard on ATTP calls it climate ball. And we can do just the same. We can lump you all together with Baroness Verma who thinks CO2 reduction might already be working; or Phil Jones who lost his data and broke the law on FOI requests; or 10:10 whose members fantasised very publicly about blowing up children; or Peter Gleick who assumed an identity to unethically, if not illegally, obtain some rather dull records; or Obama who thinks climate change is happening faster than predicted when four heads of the EPA refuse to back him up; or Mann and his 'trick' to hide the decline which when explained in terms of financial data manipulation people can clearly see it is a great way to deceive; or the people behind the Spirit of Mawson which was a poorly planned, thinly disgused excuse for an Antarctic holiday which turned into an unmitigated fiasco; or countless other points where warmists make fools or worse of themselves. And tell me, who does the game damage most? Will the public be most angry at authority figures who have their hand firmly in the public purse and like every loony before them predicts the end of the world or a bunch of people on the internet saying it might be ok, let's wait for more data before we splurge trillions on stuff that doesn't work? You fail to grasp you do not have a level playing field. AGAIN. All you are engaging in is petty point scoring. Gee, I'd have thought CAGW was more important than that.

TinyCO2 said "Gee, I'd have thought CAGW was more important than that."

Reminded me of.......

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Intermission – a short quiz

You have made some observations and calculations, which show that humanity is doomed unless it changes its ways. You have total belief in the accuracy of your predictions. Do you:

(a) Announce your results, but keep your workings secret for fear that someone will criticise them.

(b) Announce your results, but set up a group of companies to make yourself mega-rich on the back of the scare you have created.

(c) Drop everything, including secrecy and profit, and devote yourself to saving the human race.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From.....
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lying.htm

Nial, absolutely!

TBYJ I don't really mind people being rude to me. They've been rude since my first posts here so if I were sensitive I would be long gone.

If you think nobody believes that CO2 can somehow behave differently in the lab and in the open air, you haven't been reading long enough or the right threads. People claim that here and elsewhere. I take my hat off to you for having the decency to criticise such views - if that were done more sceptics might have more credibility. Your seem to be fairly new here (or I haven't noticed you much) so maybe you don't know how it is. You certainly don't seem to fit in. Accusing mainstream commenters of having ridiculous views is not done, you should know. The rule is never to criticise a fellow sceptic no matter how stupid his or her arguments.

Or one could rewrite that as 'The rule is never to criticise a fellow warmist no matter how stupid his or her arguments.'

In both cases it's not a bad policy for people who want to keep an audience on a blog but it's not a good policy if you're aiming to lead a global population in an unprecedented and arduous change in life style and aspiration. When Obama tosses out insults to sceptics he's playing the election game of slag off the opposition but he's forgotten that you can't win the climate election by being first passed the post or even proportional representation. He needs those people he’s insulting to change their mind, not strengthen it. It’s a good indicator of how little he understands what would be involved.

Warmists wanted to rush everyone into acting on CO2. They had the debate before anyone was looking and now say ‘sorry it’s not our fault you lost, now can we move on to what we do about it’. To which everyone else says ‘no, screw you’. You don’t move on by doubling down on the insults and the bullying. That’s what Peter Thiel was saying and if the co founder of PayPal makes that sort of point, you should listen.

You say you can’t put yourself in the place of a sceptic and you know what, I believe you. I think that too many on your side can’t empathise with the opposition and as a consequence make huge mistakes in communication and planning. To make a difference you need to change the way you see the other side. You have to realise that if you treat us as the enemy, we’ll bloody be the enemy.

That’s why I said that there are exceptions to the rule that most sceptics believe CO2 has some sort of an effect. Some are now so disillusioned with warmism that they’ve switched into distrust everything mode. At moments of frustration we can all believe that it’s a big con and will say something to that effect. It doesn’t mean we really believe it. When we have been surveyed the vast majority tick the box marked ‘CO2 has a warming effect on the climate’. All those people the warmists like to demonise mostly think CO2 has an effect and say so. Lawson, Watts, Montford, you name them, all go on record saying CO2 has an effect but what they won’t do is agree to a piss poor guess of how much or what greens demand we do about it.

If you haven’t done so already, go listen to Dieter Helm speak to the Science and Technology Committee

TinyCO@: "Or one could rewrite that as 'The rule is never to criticise a fellow warmist no matter how stupid his or her arguments.'"

Yes, you could if you wanted to let everyone know how little you know about how science works. But maybe that is a badge of honour. For anyone one else, you can look at the process of publishing scientific papers, getting critical reviews, publishing criticisms of other papers, giving presentations at conferences, getting given a hard time by the audience etc. You could also visit warmist sites and see how long incorrect statements last. Visit And Then There's Physics and you'll see plenty of disagreement between warmists. Visit Rabett Run today and you'll find a debate about about atmospheric water vapour levels that you would never see here.

TinyCO2 (on another thread): "If you need to flash your credentials to win a debate your arguments suck."
TinyCO2 here: " if the co founder of PayPal makes that sort of point, you should listen"

I doubt that sort of inconsistency troubles you.

Warmists do not start and stop on the blogs or even with scientists. They need to correct the most prominent gaffs first and fastest. If the president or ex vice president says something wrong or stupid he or she needs to be told. Especially if that person says that they're getting their information from scientists. Remember that tar brush?

You should take note of what Thiel believes because he is influential, not because he's intelligent, though he's probably that too. He is telling you what people like him believe and how he will exert his not inconsiderable influence. To deal with it you have to pay attention to what he says and not build a fake Thiel out of your own biases and experiences.

Why don't you understand these simple things about human nature? Do you at least accept that wamists can't do much about CO2 on their own?

Raff,

I've been here for quite a number of years, not sure how many since Google doesn't list my contributions in any sort of chronological order, but it's been more than five, because it was some time before Climategate. I just tend to take the odd sabbatical, whenever I get annoyed with someone here.

I do understand the people here, and there's a whole spectrum of belief and behaviour, welcome to the real world, not the monolithic enforced agreement of the warmist camp. Some of them irritate me intensely, thus the sabbaticals. I've had lengthy threads with people trying to convince them of the errors of their ways, sometimes successfully, mostly not. You are right, there are intransigents here. Welcome to the real world.

Certain people may disagree, but I hope I've contributed in raising the tone here to a slightly more realistic one. Believe me, it used to be a lot more denierish here, many left in what they called the "Lukewarmerisation" of the board (where is Tallbloke these days?) - something which I hope I contributed to, because extreme denialism may satisfy some tribal elements who are squaring up for an ideological fight, but in the real world, the only argument is a scientific one, and I was very early to reach out personally to scientists like Richard Betts when he started posting here, and I am glad the newer tone has attracted a group of other scientists who lurk and post here. Yes, we're a mix, but the mix is much wider than it used to be, and includes a large overlap with mainstream science now. So quit it with that tarred brush.

Raff, what I want to know is - what do YOU think your presence here achieves? Are you helping to move perceptions and beliefs onto a more rational platform, as I try to do? Or are you just antagonising the intransigent for your own personal sense of superiority and amusement? Are you helping or hindering, on other words.

"So quit it with that tarred brush."

Sure, as soon as "sceptics" stop tarring the whole of climate science with "climategate" or whatever manufactured controversy the like, I'll stop. But that is not going to happen, as you know. So I'll stick to my brush.

"what do YOU think your presence here achieves?" - probably nothing, but I have a vain hope that some people may reconsider what they read here if there are some dissenting voices. And it can be entertaining.

Raff, and that is where you fail. I can comfortably guarantee your manner here has convinced nobody to reconsider their views.