Martin A

Here are your energy budget figures.

Mick J, yes I did! This bit is good:

"Given the uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity and the magnitude and phasing of natural internal variability on decadal to century timescales, combined with the failure of climate models to explain the early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling, I conclude that the climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming."

She is NOT stating that man made CO2 cannot cause Global Warming. She IS stating that manmade Climate Science has more UNCERTAINTIES than than climate science dares to admit. This makes Curry more honest and trustworthy than those who claim to be 100% confident in their own expertise in Climate Science, especially when demonstrably wrong on so many occasions over so many years.

The main uncertainty she points to, is ECS. She has written on the subject with Nic Lewis and upset the Hockey Teamsters, who know this would upset their earnings. I admit to not knowing the Radiative Forcing of a Pork Pie. Climate Science thought ECS could be as high as 4.5, but not below 1.5. It seems it is less than 1.5, why not as low as 0?

Perhaps Trump could ask for models to be run with ECS values from 0 upto a maximum of 1.5?

Radical Rodent, I noticed the word Trenberth, so something must be missing.

golfCharlie. Because everything radiates infrared, a pork pie will have a radiative forcing, even if you don't know what it is! Even a climate scientist and the most rabid sceptic will absorb and emit almost the same amount of radiation (but not Warwick Davis).

GC: to be fair to ALL other scientists, this mythical 97% is actually 65 out of 67 (or something like that). It does seem a shame that 99.997 of ALL scientists are being tarred by the same brush that should only be used on the original 65. Perhaps we should stop using ratios with this, and use the actual numbers involved; that it does severely weaken the alarmists’ arguments should be a good enough reason to do so.

You're thinking of Doran and Zimmerman

Which asked two questions:

1. Compared with pre- 1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

9146 Earth Scientists responded, of these those active in climate change research
96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

Anderegg et al with a sample size of 1372 found that "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (anthropogenic climate change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

And of course Cook et al's survey, examining the literature and asking researchers to rate their own work came up with a similar result, examining 12,000 studies and 2,000 author self-ratings.

So, three different surveys, pretty much the same answer. There have been others

Richard Tol was one of the more outspoken critics of Cook et al, however he pointed out that

The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not. We don’t need Cook’s survey to tell us that.

Ravishing Rattie. Sorry once again to potentially disagree with you. Consensus is very, very important in science. We cannot disbelieve everything. To advance we must assume that some (most) scientific beliefs can be considered as facts. Consensus science forms the greater part of textbooks. What you are objecting to is when a consensus (especially when it is manufactured) is used to stifle criticism or alternative (by necessity minority) opinions.

Hmmm......

Quite. However a main motivation for the surveys was the claim in some quarters that the consensus did not exist or was weak, even after Oreskes 2004 found precisely zero dissenting papers out of 928 (if memory serves). Even now, its is referred to as 'mythical'.

It is real however, and the consensus is strong because the science is strong.

Radical Rodent & ACK, it was really important for Climate Scientists to claim that the fraudulent 97% Consensus was significant, and that this was endorsed 100% by the President of the United States.

The next US President may have less than 100% confidence in the 97% Consensus. Will Climate Scientists change their opinion of the value of consensus without evidence, and conclude they need some evidence to justify ripping off US Taxpayers?

If climate science is given a fair trial, that would be more than they ever gave CO2.

Phil Clarke (11.10am) what utter piffle. Oreskes work is an utter disgrace. That you should rely upon it says much.

Oreskes work is an utter disgrace. That you should rely upon it says much.

Please elaborate, Science is not known for publishing piffle.

ACK, Oreskes, Cook and Lewandowsky are 3 of the top people in Climate Science. Skeptical Science values their work very highly, and so does Phil Clarke.

Apparently they even decide who should be accused of plotting conspiracy theories.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/5/15/lewandowsky-and-oreskes-normal-service-resumed.html

Normal rubbish. Published by approval of Grantham. Even mentions Curry and Lewis and doubts about ECS.

Climate Science again claims to have reinvented a functional square wheel, that doesn't go round.

ACK, piffle proof readers are very busy in climate science. No actual science is required.

PC. "Science is not known for publishing piffle." No but you are here, and it was that I was referring to. Cannot be arsed to document Oreskes poor "research" (what a laugh) methods - more important things to do, like picking my feet.

The rules are relatively simple. In the case of a published paper, the assertions within it are taken to be true (temporarily). If someone disputes the paper's conclusions, it is they who must provide evidence for the new assertions. When you make conclusions in a paper you must assume they have yet to be accepted or proven (no matter how strong your evidence is). Publication (usually after peer review) gives any conclusions within the paper approval and the stamp of "truth". This "truth" can only be challenged by new evidence or argument. Just complaining that the "truth" is wrong is insufficient.

In BH posts I suggest we try to follow this same structure as much as possible. (Clearly we don't have peer review nor "publication". Someone making a NEW assertion should provide supporting evidence. This evidence, no matter how weak, should be considered as supporting "the truth". It can only be refuted with stronger evidence, not just contrary opinion. All too often posts in BH contain only opinion and assertions - this post being no exception.

Nov 15, 2016 at 8:34 AM | ACK

Heh.

ACK, Myron Ebell is going to employ piffle detectors in the EPA. It should remove a lot of the toxicity that is seeping into the swamp. Those swamp dwellers with a high level of piffle toxin, will need to be removed and quarantined to prevent cross contamination.

Piffle Capture and Storage could be a growth area as Trump drains the swamp and tries to remove lingering Green stains. The improvements to the Environment should be dramatic, though swamp dwellers with a high piffle dependency may have to move to the EU, while stocks last.

Phil Clarke, if you had read the blog post about the Oreskes and Lewandowsky piffle paper I referred to earlier, you will note that the expert peer reviewers failed to address the lack of references.

Should anything in climate science that has benefitted from Grantham's generosity be first on the reject pile? There is a lot of it about.

Radical rodent.

Perhaps not a coincidence.

Both environments have the same amount of CO2.

Closing down sale at NASA climate science just announced. We may never have another record breaking year of adjusted temperatures.

PC. And what happens in cases where there are two or more papers with contrary evidence or argument? Truth is relative, when it has been shown that surveys (for that's all she has done) are poorly designed. Do you believe results from such sources? Oreskes work has been severely critiqued by her peers since her garbage first began to appear. Your truth is piffle.

Her error was to fashion anthroCO2 as a malignancy. How could she be more wrong?
===========

Erroreskes.
=======