GMTom wrote: ... but then turn around and claim their position is so unassailable and correct?

No actually they aren't saying that. They are saying that the other explanations that are offered are faulty or outright bullcrap. That's why so called sceptics are sometimes so annoying especially if they seem to lack a total understanding of the process or the will to learn how the process works.

We now have an explanation for the climate change we believe is mostly correct. Scientists will not throw it overboard because some blogger in his Pyjama writes something or some dude says something in a 3 minute interview on TV. Not gonna happen.
What does happen all the time though is that new data is processed, which changes some minute detail of our assumptions. Or some data doesn't jive at all with our understanding and thus there's a focus on this data detail until we can either 1) explain it 2) tweak the underlying assumptions and theories. Only and only if that turns out to be impossibe will we take a look at the broader implications of the failure to bring the data in synch with the theory.
The chance of that happening grow smaller of course the more data is already accumulated and insynch with the theory. That's how it works.

Now a completely different stroy is what you do with this scientific knowledge in the political arena and here i think the true motives of the selfstyled sceptics lie. They don't like the political and economic implications of counteracting global warming, but that's hard to argue if you believe the scientists. That's why it's a good strategy to engage the scientists in what i consider a PR war and that's a war they aren't equipped to win. It's the same strategy creationists/ID proponents waged successfully against evolutionary biology and look how long it took that field to groom experts that could eloquently explain this complicated topic to the uneducated dummies.

Climate change is a bunch of hogwash.

This planet has natural cycles that we humans cannot even begin to fathom yet... When we can accurately predict the weather for tomorrow, ill listen to the guy who says the sky is falling.

If you look at core samples they been diggin up for the last 50 yrs, and now the ones there pulling from the depths of the Pacific its easy to see the Earth has large trends of long cold ages tappering back to shorter warmer periods.

All the hype is created by a very few IDIOTS who look at temperature data for the past 100 yrs and say "oh it deffinantly getting hotter"

Look at the same data over say a million years and the story is so very less black white and alot more inperspective.

Have we humans changed the temperature with our industrys more then the dinosaurs would have with massive volumes of Dino-shit? i doubt it. Cutting down the Rainforests on the other hand is an entirely different matter though i think.

Rolls, when I see such offhand rejection of science based simply on rough conjecture, and often borne out of wishful thinking (and hey, do we not all wish that big and complicated problems like AGW were not real and would just go away?), it makes me a sad panda.

When we can accurately predict the weather for tomorrow, ill listen to the guy who says the sky is falling

This is a common sentiment. But it is based on a flawed understanding of the nature of prediction and probability. Can we predict the weather for tomorrow to the degree that we know what the exact temperature will be at midday, how much rain will fall, how many hours of sunlight etc etc? No, not accurately or to a high degree of certainty. Can we make a rough prediction based on our limited knowledge? Yes, and we can also give a percentage likelihood that the prediction will come out.

But even if short term prediction is inaccurate, that does not mean long term predictions about underlying trends are harder. An example from maths: random numbers. If you have a (perfect) 10-sided die, numbered 0-9, and roll it over and over, recording the results there are two things that are true:

1) You have a very low chance of correctly predicting the result of the next roll.
2) The more times you roll, the more likely that any particular number will come up 1/10 of the time.

So, for one roll, I could say it will be a 7, but I will very likely (90%) be wrong.
For ten rolls, I could say that 7 will come up at least once, and I will likely (65%) be right. The chances that it is exactly one time are still pretty low (about 30-40%?)
For a hundred rolls, I could say that 7 will come up 10 times, plus or minus 2 and I will likely be right. I'm not sure of the exact probability, but we are approaching 90-95%
For a thousand or a million or more? By the Strong Law of Large Numbers, the result will tend to be that each digit will occur 1/10 of the time. The probability of making an accurate prediction will tend towards 100% as we tend towards rolling an infinite number of times.

What’s more, if you look at your records and look at every pair of digits, you will get a string of numbers between 0 and 99. Again, the longer you keep going, the more the results will show that any particular two-digit number will appear 1/100 of the time.

Now, if that phenomenon can be seen in something totally random it can also be observed in a system which is very complex but has underlying patterns. Thus, just because we cannot predict the weather for tomorrow (which is specific, not general) as accurately as you may want does not mean that we cannot make longer term predictions about the climatic trends (which are general, not specific).
Don’t believe me? Let us look at some variations and increase the complexity as we go.

First, consider a loaded die. It is biased towards the number 7, so that it will come up more often. Say… twice as much.
If we repeat the same sequence, the chance of getting any one roll correct are still low – not as low, but 20% is not very accurate as a prediction. However, similar to before, the longer we keep rolling, the more likely it will be that 7 comes up exactly 2/10 of the time.

Secondly, consider a die that we think is loaded, but have no idea whether it is or not, or by how much.
At first, we have no way to predict what any particular roll will be, or even be sure what the chances are of rolling a 7
If we run through a large number of rolls, we will end up with a series of results giving a frequency for each number. The longer we do this for, the more likely it is that we will then find out how loaded the die is and get a probability for each number coming up.
Then, we can use that to say what the chances are of a particular number (or member of a set of numbers) being rolled in any individual die roll.
We still cannot predict the next number, but we know a lot more about the die than when we started.

Now, let us go even further, and consider a dice making factory. It makes hundreds of them a day. It tests a sample of them at regular intervals to see if they are true or loaded. All kinds of factors can affect whether a die is loaded – wear and tear on the machines, quality of the raw material, prevailing pressure and temperatures, the way people handle the machines, the design and manufacture the plant, and so on and so on. But also, there is a random factor that can’t be accounted for and a basic minimum proportion of dice will always be loaded. The managers notice that the frequency of loaded dice varies over time but seems to be more than it used to be. What do they do?

Well, if I were the owner and wanted to have the lowest number of rejects I would expect that they would try to work out what the conditions were when more loaded dice were produced to see if they can detect any correlations. Then I would like to see them testing those correlations to see if they are consistent or not. Also, to look at the theory of what they are doing to see if there are some factors more likely to be in play than others. They should try to work out which ones are having an effect and come up with possible ways to reduce the risk of producing a duff die. It may be that they conclude that the problem is mainly down to ageing plant, or an under-skilled workforce, and that the remedy would involve me spending capital or revenue in order to reverse the trend. Maybe I do not want to do that. If I balance out the risks and costs and decide based on the best information to hand how to proceed, that is rational.

If I challenge their conclusions on the basis of their results, or look for alternative explanations, or even if I challenge their data collection methods, at least I am engaging with them in a rational way.

If, however, I say that I will ignore them until they can more accurately predict the single roll of a die, then I am being an, umm, IDIOT, to use your own word.

By sheer coincidence, I was listening to a programme about randomness and pseudo-randomness on the radio this morning, before I saw your post. The counter-intuitive nature of what comes out of fairly straightforward maths is mind-boggling. Part of the problem is actually in how our minds work, which just adds to the boggle-factor. We can make patterns out of chaos, but we also suffer from cognitive dissonance which means we see patterns where there are none (or no pattern where there is one). This is where the tool of science comes in handy, as it sorts the wheat from the chaff. No wonder that what we would think of as common sense seems to be at odds with what science tells us, though, because often it will give us a result that our brain is not expecting.

A long post, but now my inner panda has his bamboo shoots

Rolls is being really overly simplistic, but he has some valid points (oversimplified though they may be) All of these alternate theories have been rejected and some of them have indeed been seemingly made up but some are still possibly valid. The alarmist scientists are a bit too quick to dismiss anything contrary and too eager to hold on to their little pet belief. If it were so darned assured then they could predict things much better. The fluctuations would also be explained better than they are. Face it, the "certainty" they have is more than a bit flimsy. And they are too willing to accept fluctuations that are not supported by their theories as being natural variations yet they do fail to accept them as possibly just that, natural variations.

Once again, I am a skeptic, but I am not completely dismissing everything they say, I do have some serious questions and all the other theories have not all been dis-proven completely and as assuredly as they will have us believe. Their is absolutely nothing wrong with a dose of health skepticism and to trust what one body says implicitly, that can in fact be very dangerous.

Nothing wrong with healthy scepticism. It's the basis of what we would call good science.

There is, however, a difference between scepticism and cynicism.

And if it were 'so darned assured', then how come all the caveats in the passages I quoted from the IPCC. How many definitive statements are there, Tom?

Well Tom, in case you are ever interested in reading some actual research to base your opinion on, be sure to give me a holler. Until then i guess you'll have to base your very firm opinions on what i would regard as flimsy understanding of natural sciences and blogger bullcrap.

X

No one set of devices measures the entire planet. This be a complex hunk of molecules, the earth. You can't just stick your finger up in the air and measure its temperature.

Actually I think satelites currently do a pretty good job measuring the entire eartths surface. (I'm not sure how far back one can say this is true...) And the thousands of surface measuring points that make up GISS add to this...
If you include the oceans, then perhaps you have a point.
However part of the uncertainty of the estimates that come from models of warming are generally due to the limitations of measurement.
The general direction, on the other hand, doesn't require the precision.
And just so everyones up to date; as of January 12:

According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average.

And relevant to your earlier post on arctic and antarctic ice:

•The Arctic sea ice extent had a record long growing season, with the annual maximum occurring at the latest date, March 31, since records began in 1979. Despite the shorter-than-normal melting season, the Arctic still reached its third smallest annual sea ice minimum on record behind 2007 and 2008. The Antarctic sea ice extent reached its eighth smallest annual maximum extent in March, while in September, the Antarctic sea ice rapidly expanded to its third largest extent on record

source:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

Ricky, you said yourself that satellites were unacceptable, something about not reaching valleys where the gases were, remember, the stuff you assumed to be true because it sounded good.

The sea ice again has little if anything to do with temperatures but rather on things going on in the oceans, nice try to sell this on global warming.

Temperature readings are all manipulated, complex manipulations that increase the margin of error, readings have also come from a drastically smaller number of stations biased towards the cool.

There are real scientists who oppose some of the theories, but any who oppose are labeled as crackpots or on the payroll of oil or some other way of dismissing them without addressing their concerns.You want a good one to read, try Tim Ball, I am sure you will find simple dismissals of him being some sort of crackpot but to ignore him as such without addressing what he says is not the way to answer questions is it? How about the wikileaks leaks regarding global warming scams? Too many real questions are out there to call this settled by any means, and the numbers you alarmists throw around constantly changing. It's cooling (per the IPCC mind you!), no wait its warming (per NASA), It's global warming, no wait it's climate change, no wait it's still warming. There is no debate, well 99% no 97% no 90% it goes on and on

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

Tim Ball ...link above. Famous quote "CFC's were never a problem ...its only because the Sun is changing."
Ball's degree is in historical geopgraphy.

as for this:

Ricky, you said yourself that satellites were unacceptable, something about not reaching valleys where the gases were, remember, the stuff you assumed to be true because it sounded good.
The sea ice again has little if anything to do with temperatures but rather on things going on in the oceans, nice try to sell this on global warming.
Temperature readings are all manipulated, complex manipulations that increase the margin of error, readings have also come from a drastically smaller number of stations biased towards the cool.

Regarding the statement you claim I made about satellites... No I didn't. (Please quote me when you make claims. I'll fault your memory here and not deliberate intent.) I've pointed you to the GISS data and it obviously includes a great deal of satellite data. And just so you know, satellites instrumentation can reach into valleys...
If you have any real evidence for your assertions please support. Especially that insight into ice . You know about the melting point (0 degrees C) and all that?
All you do is keeping linking to discredited individuals like Ball who've never actually presented independent evidence for anything they claim.

see?
and the head of the IPCC has an economist, do you want to dismiss his credentials on this alone?The IPCC claimed CFCs lasted for 100 years, turns out they lasted for only 3 years. Also, what heats the earth thbe Sun or CO2? Seems to make sense that changes in the sun would have a more direct effect on our temperatures but no, you dismiss that as well.

I will admit error in the satellite statement, from the old forums you mentioned mountain top temps did not vary because of less greenhouse gas. No proof to that assertion but it sounded good I suppose? I did confuse this moutain/valley temperature with the satellite gathering methods.

and as discussed any and every person who suggests any disention is simply brushed aside as discredited. That's part of the problem, once you disagree, you are blacklisted and "discredited". It's tough to argue when anything you bring up is simply brushed aside regardless of merit.

Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball. His degree was in historical geography, not climatology.

Ball lies about his credentials. When someone blatantly lies about their qualifications, they disqualify themselves from serious consideration.

In all seriousness Dan, thanks for the thoughtful response to my 'thesis' post. You are quite correct, and presented your argument well, I'm on board; AGW is a host of different theses. And X, Dan is right on another point too. If AGW (in all its pieces) is, at its core, a science, then it is testable...just like math and molecules.

and it has so far failed all tests

rickyp wrote:X

No one set of devices measures the entire planet. This be a complex hunk of molecules, the earth. You can't just stick your finger up in the air and measure its temperature.

Actually I think satelites currently do a pretty good job measuring the entire eartths surface. (I'm not sure how far back one can say this is true...) And the thousands of surface measuring points that make up GISS add to this...
If you include the oceans, then perhaps you have a point.

Thanks for that final concession! Both the oceans and the atmosphere have varying temperature dynamics depending on depth/altitude, latitude, and in the case of the oceans, currents and salinity differences. It's possible for the earth to be heating up in general, but at any one time one "zone" (such as a particular upper atmospheric layer, for the deep Atlantic but not the deep Pacific) may be cooling. In fact, nearly all the models show this as not merely possible but a common and expected feature. As things stand, we do not have enough instruments to measure everything. That doesn't mean we can't get extremely useful data, but it does mean that we can't really say what the exact temp of the earth is. And even if we did have eight zillion instruments all over and at different elevations, etc. we'd still have the problem of how to weight the temp. of one cubic meter of water with a salinity of X relative to one cubic meter of air at so many millibars of pressure. Plus, if you think about it, "the temp. of the earth" really ought to include measurements of rock and soil at various depths.

If you live by the sword you die by the sword. If you insist that instrument readings of degrees Celsius of various components of the planet are what's important, you'll suffer at the whims of planetary dynamics that can change on nearly a daily basis. I find such instrument data to be interesting and useful, but I am personally influenced at least as much by observations of how life on earth is altering its chronological/seasonal patterns and rhythms in response to what these organisms are sensing. When migration patterns, times of plant sprouting/blooming/fruiting/etc., reproductive cycles, altitude preferences, and so on nearly ad infinitum, all begin to shift, all over the planet, from montane to benthic environments, in ways that show a response to warming, arguments about the placement of surface stations or the accuracy of instruments becomes somewhat moot. Life is a sensitive instrument; it's just that scientists can't easily turn "readings" of that instrument into numbers they can crunch. And when it comes to educating the public, especially the "skeptical" public like Tom, it's much more convincing to say "temps are X degrees higher this year than last" than to say that "Mountain Jays on such and such a peak in Colorado are nesting, on average, 40 meters higher per year for each of the last six years." Scientists have trouble separating "mere anecdote" from valid bits of datum that might be quite meaningful but can't be fit into any larger quantitative scheme.

This is, I suspect, the source of some of the disconnect that's arisen over "consensus". The scientists who have been actively immersed in the field are typically aware of the wide range of natural responses to warming that have been noted and reported. This is bound to influence how likely they are to accept the AGW theory. For one thing, we often have much better historical records on phenomena like economically important migrations than we do on things like the temps of the deep ocean or of particular layers of the atmosphere, or simply of surface temps in the third world. Having absorbed a much wider range of evidence than scientists not actively engaged in the field, the scientists who have ended up being part of the IPCC process are less likely to question the entire theory simply because some questions arise about one of several direct measurement systems. This explains I think, in part, why the most reputable "deniers" are indeed credentialed scientists - and maybe even in a relevant field - but have either been retired for a while or not so directly and intimately involved in warming research.

This is part of what I was trying to say to PCHiway. Falsifiability is great in theory, but not so easy in practice with a subject like global warming. We could theoretically see surface temps, as measured, fall every year for a decade without that necessarily falsifying AGW. Maybe the heat, due to a multi-decadal cycle linked to ocean currents, has been pushed to a particular layer of the atmosphere, or been absorbed by surface waters that then plunge deeper than we normally measure. Or maybe the heat has spurred the growth of tidal crustacea of a certain type that become a carbon sink, but in year eleven the ocean's concentration of some trace metal they need is finally lowered below the species' threshold and they all die, releasing all the carbon they've been storing.

This is why it's a simple combo of facts that I find most convincing:
1) we know we release lots of greenhouse gases and that their concentration in the atmosphere is rising - no one seriously disputes this in the slightest.
2) there's lot of miscellaneous evidence (including readings made by fancy satellites) that warming is occurring, and for most bits of evidence there are signs that either the warming is accelerating or it began fairly recently.

Those two facts, if they are facts (as I think they are), together make a very compelling case for AGW, and it's a case that can't be significantly weakened by the existence of some small volume of contrary data. I think this very general "case" for AGW is more responsible for the consensus than a widespread belief that some NOAA data series (or the like) is perfect. Guys like Tom think that if they can find some tiny flaw in that sort of data the case for AGW is severely damaged. Then, when you try to explain that even if they are right about something like the placement of some surface stations not being adequately accounted for the overall case for AGW is unaffected they accuse you of A) ignoring contrary evidence, B) moving the goalposts, and C) being religious.

It's the guys who have been, for many years, immersed in the whole wide range of info about warming who are best positioned to judge the strength of the AGW theory, and nearly all of them are involved in the IPCC process.

GMTom wrote:and as discussed any and every person who suggests any disention is simply brushed aside as discredited. That's part of the problem, once you disagree, you are blacklisted and "discredited". It's tough to argue when anything you bring up is simply brushed aside regardless of merit.

Tom how do you know that that's actually happening ? I mean what do you base that opinion upon ? That people claim they are blacklisted, or their research is ignored ? Do you read various scientific publications or do you just trust their word on it ? Because when i try to look up what exactly many of the "scientific scpetics" have published i suddenly find that they aren't really active or at least not in the field of climatology.
So what is it that makes you believe that the science isn't done properly ?