Most people accept the GHG hypothesis and that CO2 emissions can influence climate. The big question is to what degree. Views range from negligible to catastrophic. Today it appears that opinion is becoming less alarmist.

When I created this discussion my intention was to question whether climate scientists created much of the alarmism through sloppy science. I refer to claiming “unprecedented” when observations actually lay within known limits of natural variability; ignoring many observations that contradicted their claims and their models, failing to reject their models after years of them being invalidated.

I could add to all of this the many poor practices exposed in the Climategate emails. I was speculating about whether the scientific method expects better. Would a scientist of normal integrity, ability and scientific skill have studied the same observations and arrived at a prediction of catastrophic warming?

Given the worldwide impact and cost of CAGW I thought it was worth examining how we got here and that involves questioning the quality of the science that underpins the whole issue.

Mike
All good points written with feeling.

It is very true that CAGW has been exploited by just about every group imaginable and they all have a vested interest in keeping it going - including the scientists.

I don't think this situation will last forever, especially if the earth enters a cooling phase. I'm quite impressed by a recent Russian paper that builds on the solar activity idea. A colder earth would be much more harmful than a warming one, but it would be entertaining to see how cooling can be blamed on anthropogenic CO2.

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/abdussamatov.pdf

Mike,

But of you had your way as far as this site is concerned Voisin would not even be allowed to publish this hypothesis so we'd never know.

Again, you're misrepresenting my point. I'm not trying to suggest that such hypotheses should not be allowed to be published. I'm making the very simple point that there are certain things about which we are virtually certain. People are welcome to present argument as to why these ideas might be wrong, but doing so is unlikely to be taken seriously. As I've said before, you can say whatever you like, you just can't insist that people take you seriously.

your ideas are set in concrete.

My ideas are not set in stone, in general. However, there is one thing about this particular topic that I regard as virtually certain and that - as I understand it - virtually everyone who understands this topic regards as virtually certain: the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800s is anthropogenic. You can argue against that if you wish, but you will almost certainly not be taken seriously by anyone who actually understands this topic if you choose to do so.

aTTP - please can you answer this?:
//
aTTP: "the ocean PH is going down"

On which dataset are you basing this assertion?
//

Not,
If you want to make, make a point. It's easy enough to do a Google search for Ocean PH data if you wish.

I wanted to ask a question, so I did: One to which you apparently do not have an answer. It would have been easy enough to supply a reference if you had one.

Mike,
This discussion is starting to go in circles. All I'm trying to do is tell you something. In all scientific fields there are certain things that are typically regarded as virtually certain, or not really worth debating any more. People sometimes send me articles claiming that they've shown that Einstein is wrong. I ignore them. People send me articles about the Higgs boson. I ignore them. In climate science, if there is one thing that is regarded as virtually certain it's that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. You're welcome to contest that point but (based on my understanding of the topic and based on the behaviour of scientists in general) you will not be taken seriously if you do so. You, however, don't have to believe me and I'm going to stop pointing this out now.

Not,
There are numerous datasets. Read Chapter 3 of the IPCC WGI report if you want to know more. I've also spoken with some people who actually work in this area.

Then: "There are numerous datasets. Read Chapter 3 of the IPCC WGI report if you want to know more. I've also spoken with some people who actually work in this area."

I ran this through google translate (it was easy enough) and it came up with:

"I heard something along the way which I accepted without checking it out and because I've now been shown to have been talking out of my hat I'm trying to divert attention by sending you off to do the checking I should have done"

Handy old tool google - it even gave me language references in support: "bullsh1t" and "truth".

shub - I laughed outloud at the irony of aTTP's lack of reference on a discussion thread regarding scientific practice where his first post here was trying to take the high ground on accuracy of representation.

I cried inside that (if what I've gleaned from other comments is correct) he is a paid professional academic scientist, entrusted with teaching duties.

As somebody once said:

"If you really want to make claims about other people being unscientific, you should at least try to ensure that your claims about what has been said/done in the past are actually true."

" I cried inside that (if what I've gleaned from other comments is correct) he is
a paid professional academic scientist, entrusted with teaching duties."

That isn't true is it?? I would cry too..

Rob - see para 5 here:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/17/in-which-computer-models-collide-with-the-real-world.html

"Ken Rice, of AndThenTheresPhysics...."

See second para here:

http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/people/ken-rice

"My research in a nutshell

I teach at all levels within the School of Physics and Astronomy. I typically teach part of one of the pre-honours Astronomy courses. Currently, I'm co-teaching the new Astrobiology course but have also taugh part of Discovering Astronomy, Astronomy 1S and Astronomy 1G. I have also taught part of the Senior Honours Computational Astrophysics course, am helping with Research Methods in Junior Honours and also teach a few lectures as part of the SUPA graduate school courses."

ATTP says: "Additionally, the ocean PH is going down, which means that the amount of CO2 in the oceans is going up."

This is rubbish. ATTP obviously knows nothing about chemistry.

If you really want to make claims about other people being unscientific, you should at least try to ensure that your claims about what has been said/done in the past are actually true.

That ocean pH is reducing is at least scientifically true (or, at least, all the evidence points towards it reducing). Read the IPCC WGI Chapter 3 if you wish to find some discussion of this. If you want a paper try Feely (2009). If you want more papers, try looking for ones that cite Feely (2009) - you do know how to do that, I assume. The one specific conversation I had with someone who is regarded as an expert on this topic included the phrase this is pretty much an open and shut case.

You're also making the case for not discussing something like whether or not the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic or not. Not only is it a waste of time (it is anthropogenic), but it gets rather tedious when people like yourselves start resorting to Ad Homs, rather than actual arguments, while accusing me of not providing evidence.

aTTP - still no actual dataset reference I see, as you continue to pursue your "go and look over there" response.

There is nothing "ad hom" about crying at such a lack of scientific honesty and rigour in one paid to teach.

Good bye.

I'll give you a clue. Sea water is a natural pH buffer.

It just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read in a model output report.

Especially if it concerns climate change.

From Feely (2009)

Ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 and does not suffer from uncertainties associated with climate change forecasts. Absorption of anthropogenic CO2, reduced pH, and lower calcium carbonate (CaCO3) saturation in surface waters, where the bulk of oceanic production occurs, are well verified from models, hydrographic surveys, and time series data (Caldeira & Wickett 2003, 2005; Feely et al. 2004, 2008; Orr et al. 2005; Solomon et al. 2007). At the Hawaii Ocean Time-Series (HOT) station ALOHA the growth rates of surface water pCO2 and atmospheric CO2 agree well (Takahashi et al. 2006) (Figure 1), indicating uptake of anthropogenic CO2 as the major cause for long-term increases in dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and decreases in CaCO3 saturation state. Correspondingly, since the 1980s average pH measurements at HOT, the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series Study, and European Station for Time- Series in the Ocean in the eastern Atlantic have decreased approximately 0.02 units per decade (Solomon et al. 2007).

Try reading papers before you state something as a fact. Jeepers, this isn't even a complicated concept. Note, also, the fairly definite use of the term "anthropogenic CO2".

And Shub, seriously, don't try and give me advice again. If you do, I'll quite happily tell you why you're close to being the last person from whom I would consider accepting it.

Anyway, I'm done here for now. I'd like to say that I haven't wasted my time, but I'd be lying if I did. I'd also like to say something nice and complimentary about this whole exchange, but - again - I'd be lying if I did.

I take it you have read all the papers cited?