The post mentioned by golf charlie is well worth reading. We don't usually have a chance to hear six top climate scientists discuss the contentious issues. The attitude of the warmists is amazing. Calling it confirmation bias does not do it justice.

They set out to have AGW and everything else flows from that. The only thing that is not clear is whether they actually believe they are saving the planet or whether they are in so deep that the only way forward is to deny reality.

How could so many experts study the Antarctic peninsula and not notice that 91 volcanoes were warming it from below? (Just don't mention geothermal warming, it spoils the hype.)

The models are wrong, so why use them as the basis for policymaking? Because that is the IPCC way, or words to that effect.

When unable to bull**** about the science to other climate scientists, the warmists come over as children caught cheating. They deny it, but cannot find evidence to support their case.

From Judith Curry's article
"The thing that really clicked in my brain was this statement by Bill Collins:
"We understand a lot of the physics in its basic form. We don’t understand the emergent behavior that results from it."
This honesty is absent from 97% of Climate Scientists, as they arrogantly claim to have the science "settled"

Judith Curry referred to this paper with co-authors including Mann and Lewandowsky as rubbish, though Dana Nuccitelli rates his colleagues very highly:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/29/new-study-uncovers-the-keystone-domino-strategy-of-climate-denial

sadly, The Guardian's commenters seem oblivious to the depths that Mann has sunk to, and that doesn't just mean co-authoring with Lewandowsky.

Correction, Judith Curry did not describe the latest paper co-authored by Mann and Lewandowsky as rubbish, she tweeted:

"This is absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published https://t.co/jBSiJ1DMlL pic.twitter.com/XnuRZDrsUt"

— Judith Curry (@curryja) November 29, 2017

A close contender must have been:
The Subterranean War on Science
STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY, MICHAEL E. MANN, LINDA BAULD, GERARD HASTINGS, AND ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS

This essay by Rupert Darwall explores the expressions of public certainty by climate scientists versus the private expressions of uncertainty, in context of a small Workshop on Climate organized by the American Physical Society (APS). 

From <https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/29/a-veneer-of-certainty-stoking-climate-alarm/#more-23606>

I note that panel discussion - to decide a revised APS position statement on climate change - took place in February 2014, and a new statement was adopted in 2015. The statement 'reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce emissions' and states

While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

From <https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_3.cfm>

More recently of course, in testimony to the House of Representatives. Dr Curry confirmed her belief that AGW is 'as likely as not' to become a big problem.

Video : 2.24

https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and

Dec 1, 2017 at 11:17 AM | Phil Clarke

Phil Clarke, to put things in context, you should look here:

https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/31/deniers-lies-and-politics/

"Lies, damned lies and more lies"

"I always thought that there would be consequences for lying during Congressional testimony.  I guess not.  Mann got caught out in several blatant lies during the Hearing."

"This is pretty classic:  Mann denies calling me a denier [link]"

"A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier"

"when he states this in his written testimony:"

"Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry"

"Mann ‘denies’ being associated with the Climate Accountability Institute [link].  Julie Kelly writes in an article Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself Before Congress"

"Turns out Mann appears to be a bit of a denier himself. Under questioning, Mann denied being involved with the Climate Accountability Instituteeven though he is featured on its website as a board member. CAI is one of the groups pushing a scorched-earth approach to climate deniers, urging lawmakers to employ the RICO statute against fossil-fuel corporations. When asked directly if he was either affiliated or associated with CAI, Mann answered “no.”   Mann also lists this affiliation on his CV]"

"Some additional ‘porkies’ are highlighted in an article by James Delingpole."

Is this the level of honesty that you consider so worthy of your trust?
When Curry titles something
"Lies, damned lies and more lies"
she has not even mentioned Mann's statistics

As far as I am aware, Dr Curry is what is known as a lukewarmer. She believes that carbon dioxide causes some degree of warming. (I think most of us accept that.)

I don't know what she thinks about the APS position statement though she may have commented at the time.

I personally disagree with some of the statement. Evidence of natural influences on the climate are growing, especially ocean oscillations. Estimates of climate sensitivity to human emissions are trending downwards, thereby reducing the human influence.

Dr Mann is an advisor to the CAI, a fact he misremembered under questioning; he then however directed the committee to his CV, where the role is listed.

Desperate?

"Nothing to see here." Again. A guy lied and failed to maintain consistency. Part of a long record of same. But it's OK, because...why, exactly?

There's a difference between an error and a lie. Mann incorrectly answered 'No' when asked about an association to CAI as he is an advisor to CAI; he's an advisor to many organisations. If he really intended to conceal the fact he would hardly have submitted his CV to the Committee.Besides the question was nothing to do with the science, just a crude attempt at a smear.

What 'long record' exactly?

Desperate?

Dec 1, 2017 at 1:53 PM | Phil Clarke

Even if Mann isn't, his Lawyers must be wary of him giving reliable evidence in Court, about anything. Expert witnesses he calls could contradict him by being honest.

The Long Playing Record of the Hockey Stick? His long record of avoiding the Witness Box?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/01/some-thoughts-on-climate-difficult-not-to-be-skeptical/

"Dr. Happer was invited because of his accomplishments in atomic physics which would be acceptable to the other very Liberal professors in the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department. What wasn’t know to them was that Happer was allowed to pick the subject of his talk and he chose Climate Change.

Happer started by saying we all agree that climate changes. It has since the beginning of time and will continue to change. He also mentioned that no one can tell you what the “average temperature” should be because there isn’t no average world temperature. The temperature at sea level is very different than the temperature 3000 feet up a mountain just a few miles away.

Happer admitted he, himself, had grossly over predicted the effect of increased levels of CO2 during the 1980s. He said the hysteria over climate change is caused by computer models not observation. He pointed out the model predictions don’t come close to the observations. They predicted an increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius over the last decade but the temperature has only increased 0.05 degrees. He put up a slide that showed what the computer models predicted and what has actually been observed. The models show dramatically higher levels than have been observed. "

It is just physics isn't it?

In the real world of normal science, the validation of a model is its ability to reproduce observations for the same parameter initiation values.

As we have seen with climate models, they fail to do this therefore none of them is valid. I can’t see any room for debate.

https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1-600x308.png

So? That graph is a bit meaningless, is it not?

Let us say, for argument sake that one of these predictions matches the satellite record. We would have to check that the starting values were comparable. We would have to see whether the fixed values for things that cannot be modelled are comparable. I refer to cloud cover for example. We have to make sure that all the values used are comparable to reality. For example, hot running models can be cooled down by using unrealistic levels of aerosols.

Then we would have to make sure that the assumptions used are realistic. Then we would have to check hindcasting to see if that worked.

The models are no where near such a level of performance and I suspect you know that already.

So? That graph is a bit meaningless, is it not?

Let us say, for argument sake that one of these predictions matches the satellite record. We would have to check that the starting values were comparable. We would have to see whether the fixed values for things that cannot be modelled are comparable. I refer to cloud cover for example. We have to make sure that all the values used are comparable to reality. For example, hot running models can be cooled down by using unrealistic levels of aerosols.

Then we would have to make sure that the assumptions used are realistic. Then we would have to check hindcasting to see if that worked.

The models are no where near such a level of performance and I suspect you know that already.

Sorry about the double post.

As the US prepares its Red Team - Blue Team investigation of global warming I thought I would have a go at producing some conclusions that I have reached in the course of our discussions.

1. The climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions has been reducing steadily, even according to the IPCC.
2. There is no evidence of the predicted positive water vapour feedback leading to severe warming.
3. There has been warming during recent decades. Some of that may be attributable to greenhouse gases.
4. There have been similar rates of warming in the past.
5. Warming has been the overall trend since the LIA.
6. Apart from the geothermally warmed Antarctic peninsula, the Antarctic has been stable or cooling.
7. The Arctic has warmed but there is growing evidence that its climate is affected by several ocean oscillations. It has a history of large swings in ice extent and there may be a dominant 60 year cycle.
8. Sea level rise appears to be constant and stable and is not showing accelerating rising as predicted.
9. Model predictions are driving policymaking but they are running hot compared with observations.
10. There is increasing evidence that natural climate variability is an important factor.
11. Ocean oscillations can cause warming and cooling.
12. Many papers claim a solar influence on climate but this is not yet proven.
13. Current warming is similar to the long term trend. It is not known whether the next phase will involve more warming, resumption of the pause or cooling.

Dec 3, 2017 at 11:38 AM | Schrodinger's Cat

1. Curry and Lewis have been ostracised by 97% of Climate Scientists for challenging ECS assumptions. Have the models had their programming adjusted to reflect the lack of confidence in the IPCC assumptions?

2. Water, whether as solid, liquid or vapour seems to correct imbalances in temperature, not amplify them.

3. 4. 5. Agreed. Climate Science cannot/will not explain.

6. Steig et al was a great example of data being abused, and Peer Review being abused for publicity purposes.

7.History and archaeology etc confirm that Arctic Ice Extent varies

8. History, archaeology, geology, geography etc confirm sea levels have been rising, and that land levels are not stable benchmarks.

9. Agreed. The poor and needy are suffering the most as a result.

10. Research money has been targetted at proving CO2 is the only cause of Global Warming, because it was apparently decided that it was. There is no evidence to support this conclusion.

11. Water is very good at storing heat, and moving it from A to B.

12. The amount of heat received by the Earth, from the Sun varies. Some cycles have been observed and predicted, but they may just be cycles within longer term cycles.

13. Research money is only looking for evidence of Warming, and now speculative guesswork of what might happen if Warming does occur.

There is more land in the Northern Hemisphere. The Earth wobbles on its axis. Magnetic North moves, and switches North to South. For 100s of years, weather observations have come from the Northern Hemisphere, oblivious to the Pacific and the big mixer known as the Southern Ocean.

Thanks, gc. John Christy reports that for the last couple of decades, the temperature has been rising by less than 0.1 degree per decade.

That is according to the satellite record. Given the lack of physical thermometers and the massive amount of smearing, extrapolation, homogenisation and adjustment of the other temperature records, I would give priority to the satellite record any time. If we accept this result for the sake of argument, what does it mean?

It supports the conclusions discussed above.

Warming continues at a slow pace.
This may be due to natural drivers, AGW, or some of both.

The climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions has been reducing steadily, even according to the IPCC. 

You mean the estimate has been decreasing? Not really, the first serious attempt was Charney 1979 who gave a figure of 3 +/- 1.5C. IPCC AR5 has "in the range 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1 °C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6 °C (medium confidence)."

2. There is no evidence of the predicted positive water vapour feedback leading to severe warming.

Of course there is!

Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λq = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035333/abstract

4. There have been similar rates of warming in the past.

None as rapid

8. Sea level rise appears to be constant and stable and is not showing accelerating rising as predicted.

According to Church & White,  the average rate of sea level rise from 1900 to 2000 is about 1.6 mm/yr. Since 2000, around 3.4 mm/yr.  That is acceleration.

9. Model predictions are driving policymaking but they are running hot compared with observations.

Nope

12. Many papers claim a solar influence on climate but this is not yet proven.

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447.short

13. Current warming is similar to the long term trend. It is not known whether the next phase will involve more warming, resumption of the pause or cooling.

I know where the smart money is, though.

Dec 3, 2017 at 6:52 PM | Schrodinger's Cat

But almost all of the money has been spent on the consequences of Computer Generated Models, programmed with assumptions about the properties of CO2.

I accept that no model of the Climate can be perfect, but the Models are consistently imperfect.

Climate Scientists are struggling to come to terms with the fact that Trump is turning off the money supply. As they have got used to not admitting mistakes, and ostacising those that point them out, there may be a backlash from within academia, and amongst professional bodies, as scores are settled.

Climate Science peaked in Paris, and Trump is going to allow it to wither on the vine. The UN's IPCC is 50+% US funded? Climate Science may not be celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the Hockey Stick.

Maybe then, Climate Science will get honest about the Peer Reviewed "Climate Science", that should never have been published.

Phil Clarke, do you think that the Sun could change between 2007 and 2015? Mike Lockwood does not explain

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/mike-lockwood-sun-has-no-influence-on-climate-except-when-it-does/

Golf Charlie

The numbers you seek are on the graphs Figure 1B and 1C of the original Nature paper .

Dec 3, 2017 at 11:40 PM | Entropic man

Thank you, that is the confusing thing that is referenced here:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/mike-lockwood-sun-has-no-influence-on-climate-except-when-it-does/

Dec 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM | golf charlie

I know where the smart money is, though.

Dec 3, 2017 at 8:16 PM | Phil Clarke

Demand for coal is going to increase.