Comments on: Never the twain shall meet

By: David White

David White — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:13:05 +0000

Simplistic answer to the original question:

IPCC supporters v IPCC sceptics.

The polarising element, IMHO, is the political implications written by non-scientific policy people, based on the scientific papers accepted by the IPCC.

While we argue, heatedly, about the scientific papers, it is the political response to the “presented science” that more definitely separates one camp from the other. (I use the term “IPCC” to encapsulate the science+politics of the AGW believers.)

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 07:01:51 +0000

To give Gavin credit, he does sound solidly credible. It’s no wonder that politicians around the world believe him. But in this statement he conveniently conflates CAGW with “other assorted pollutants,” diverts attention by claiming we’re arguing over the weather 1000 years ago, and simply closes his mind to any validity in the sceptics’ arguments, claiming they’re all motivated by “political positions.” Finally, he attempts to close off this point of view by characterising all who agree with him as “the science community” (not only climate scientists), united in their dedication to pure science itself. His opponents are not scientists of any description, but “people” looking to support their views, who obviously cannot be counted on for the truth.

His position on CAGW will only be unpicked by verified scientific fact, and it will have to be done strand by strand, including real-world climate observations and descriptions of atmospheric phenomena. Does he acknowledge the existence of the UAH temp series? Imagine the effect of Dr Schmidt changing his mind! Who’s familiar with his statements and arguments?

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 01:21:52 +0000

This little email exchange between Simon Singh and Martin Durkin (director: The Great Global Warming Swindle) is interesting (warning: colourful language)

—-Original Message—– From: Martin Durkin [mailto:mdurkin@wagtv.com]

Subject: RE: The Global Warming Swindle To: Simon Singh

The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance. Most of the temperature rise in the past 150 years happened before 1940. Most of the human CO2 happened in the latter part of the 20 century.

Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing. The IPCC’s own figures show the hottest year in the past ten was 1998, and the temp has been flat-lining now for five years. If it’s greenhouse gas causing the warming the rate of warming should be higher in the troposphere than on the surface. The opposite is the case. The ice core data shows that temperature change causes the level of atmospheric CO2 to change – not the other way round.

Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of s*** programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?

Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and **** yourself.

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/durkinemails.htm

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:21:04 +0000

Seen at JoNova

Author: Orkneygal
Comment:
After reading what’s being typed around the blogosphere, from Dr Curry’s blog, WUWT, Tallbloke’s place, RC, Romm’s house of horrors, etc., it seems that Fred Pearce has found a way to alienate commentators from every part of the spectrum.

Looks to me like the New Scientist has a major accomplished a major publicity coup.

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:02:57 +0000

There is a suggestion that “climate sceptics” be referred to as “climate numpties”

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/6/singh-low-sweet-skeptic.html

This is the level we have been reduced to, it would appear.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 22:28:27 +0000

Gavin Schmidt’s objection is telling
——————————————————————————————————————————
I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
“the scientific community” in his world view being only those that reflect his views.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 20:49:37 +0000

Seems like Fred Pearce has upset a few people.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/5/the-big-cutoff.html

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 20:11:53 +0000

Or,

“AGW sceptical climate scientists, astrophysicists and related party AGW sceptics attempt peace deal with AGW aligned climate scientists”

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 20:04:38 +0000

Fred Pearce’s headline sums up the oversimplification and misrepresentation of the debate:-

“Climate sceptics and scientists attempt peace deal”

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/climate-sceptics-scientists-at.html

It’s more like:-

“Climate scientists, astrophysicists and related party AGW sceptics attempt peace deal with AGW aligned climate scientists”

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 06:50:59 +0000

Weather is climate – apparently.

“Flat-earthers, it’s time for a cold shower” – Opinion, Mike Carlton, smh.

“PARDON me for pointing out the bleedin’ obvious but for those who have not been paying attention much of the planet has been devastated by extraordinary weather in the past year.”

[Blah Blah]

“Given this catalogue of global disaster, would now be a good time for the climate change flat-earthers to shut up and listen, do you think? Just for a day or two, or even five minutes?”

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/flatearthers-its-time-for-a-cold-shower-20110204-1agt8.html