That said, I am slow to accept evidence, but once it’s in and digested, I’m quick to give up unsupported inferences. That is skepticism. Our planet and species will be damaged by the Deniers because they will never accept the consequences of their denial, even after the evidence of the predicted disastrous outcome is no longer in the future. Then they will believe it’s someone else’s fault for not having been sufficiently convincing in the first place.

One could extrapolate the discussion (not by much) and state that Nazi party policy & propaganda was peer reviewed (by other members of said insidious party) and deemed as being good, honest, wholesome and truthful without the factual & moral input from ‘outsiders’ ‘heretics’ ‘deniers’ or whatever they (or you) decide to bandy about as an insult next.

The evidence is not overwhelming, I am far from convinced, but please carry on trying, as I’m not a flat Earther with a closed bigotted mind, convinced that ‘the science is over’ – it NEVER is….. we haven’t even got as far as a GUT yet!

Denier – a four year old, covered in lipstick, saying “No mommy, I have not been in your makeup.”

Skeptic – The parent, trying to create scenarios where this could actually be the truth, and not coming up with any tangible evidence.

Silence is golden – the older sibling going all 5th amendment, in order to prevent the proverbial book being thrown at him/her- for letting it happen and/or causing it to happen.

Facts and myths about what the IPCC does and doesn’t do … and about climate change, too. That whole “I wouldn’t mind 2 degrees warmer …” thing is in there, too.

I take your point about short term variations masking longer term trends, however does this observation not invalidate alarmist claims in itself? To put this another way, I’d guess that temperatures where I live (the UK) vary by say 40C over the course of a year…

How does that invalidate anything? Yes the temperature has gone down slightly, down from an already high level. It may have masked the warming trend, briefly, but it did not come anywhere close to erasing the warming that has already happened. It is still way above what it had been before this all started. In the end the warming was delayed slightly, not reversed and not stopped. When the solar cycle goes on the upswing again, as it invariably will, temperatures will start increasing faster than the trend. That is what a trend means. So I fail to see that invalidates anything.

Regarding your post 124, sorry but I don’t agree that you are establishing that humanity is the cause of GW, only that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

First, CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Releasing it into the atmosphere can’t help but increase the temperature. Even if we aren’t causing the warming now, we will eventually.

But ignoring that, I established three things. One, we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Two, it is primarily greenhouse gases that are causing the warming. Three, it is the CO2 that we are releasing that is the primary greenhouse gas responsible. I guess you can draw any conclusion you want from that, but for me the implications are clear.

You agree that over geological time the average temperature (and sea level) has been much higher than the present?

Yes. There are many reasons that can lead to substantial change in temperature (although there are few that can cause as rapid a change as we are seeing now). Those include, amongst other things, the position of the continents, changes in Earth’s orbit, growth or weathering of mountain ranges. But changes in climate do not happen randomly, they happen for a reason. Looking at the pattern of warming and the various factors that can lead to a warming, CO2 is the only one we know of that can account for most of the warming. If you want to say it isn’t CO2, you need to provide another mechanism that is responsible.

I couldn’t resist that ‘weathermen’ jibe, although it has been noted that the IPCC reports are full of forecasting-based language despite claiming otherwise. I think that my opinions on research funding are simple observations of human nature, not conspiracy theories. I have HUGE respect for science but would have to admit that there is enourmous variation in the quality of research, ranging from measuring the age of the universe at one extreme, to chocolate is good for you/makes you fat/thin/sexy/etc at the other end.

You are accusing pretty much every scientist in several large branches of science of not admitting they are wrong just to save face. That does not indicate a very high degree of confidence in science.

With regard to sea levels – looking around on the internet, you’re right and I’m wrong. Sea levels are rising at maybe 1 – 2mm per year. But the tidal range where I live is 22 feet (sorry for the mixed units!) so I don’t think I need to worry yet. Maybe during the next hundred years the sea walls where I live will be rebuilt a few inches higher.

Tell that to island countries that are going to disappear. Tell that to most of our major cities that are right at sea level. We have the habit of building our major cities at natural ports, which tend to be low-lying, fairly flat areas on large bodies of salt water.

Regarding your post 124, sorry but I don’t agree that you are establishing that humanity is the cause of GW, only that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

You agree that over geological time the average temperature (and sea level) has been much higher than the present?

I couldn’t resist that ‘weathermen’ jibe, although it has been noted that the IPCC reports are full of forecasting-based language despite claiming otherwise. I think that my opinions on research funding are simple observations of human nature, not conspiracy theories. I have HUGE respect for science but would have to admit that there is enourmous variation in the quality of research, ranging from measuring the age of the universe at one extreme, to chocolate is good for you/makes you fat/thin/sexy/etc at the other end.

With regard to sea levels – looking around on the internet, you’re right and I’m wrong. Sea levels are rising at maybe 1 – 2mm per year. But the tidal range where I live is 22 feet (sorry for the mixed units!) so I don’t think I need to worry yet. Maybe during the next hundred years the sea walls where I live will be rebuilt a few inches higher.

“past 7 or so years, it’s not, it’s cooling
wow talk about cherry picking data. Look up sun cycles. You have not bothered to understand the basics of climate change.

Or the first several paragraphs of post 135, which deal exclusively with this issue.

What is more, the comment immediately before your first comment, post 154, also deals with this claim.

To put it simply: 2001 was near the peak of a solar cycle. Right now we are near the bottom of a solar cycle, so it is cold relative to the trend. So what we have is, if anything, an extremely tiny cooling trend, based on a well-known phenomena, over a very short period of time superimposed an a much larger increase over the last century. If you actually look at a plot of temperature over the last century, there are numerous small periods of time where the cycle is increasing faster than average, and numerous small periods of time where it increasing slower than average or even decreasing slightly. These period cancel out over longer periods of time, leading to a significant net warming. Pulling out a few years of a decades-long trend and saying that this somehow disproves the trend is cherry-picking because it ignores the whole point of looking at trends: to filter out smaller, short-term changes so we can see the long-term pattern. I could do the same thing at numerous points of time over the last century.

Pulling out a single winter, as you did, is even more extreme case of cherry picking. There will be cold winters and warm winters, cold summers and warm summers. We are talking about a trend here.

As for your other claims:

evidence of rising temperatures IS NOT evidence that we are responsible.

I’ve already explained that this is a strawman argument. There are a number of different lines of evidence pointing to humans being the culprit, and the mere fact that the world is warming is not one of them. Please see my post 124.

CO2 levels in the past have been far higher than now and so on and so on…

Yes, during periods where the world was much warmer, there were few or no glaciers, and the sea levels were much higher. Humans have not lived through such a period, though, as I have already pointed out. Rapid rises in CO2 (probably related to methane hydrate release, which has not happened this time yet, thankfully) appears to generally be associated with mass extinctions (not the big 5, but some of the larger ones in the cenozoic era). So it is not really something we should be hoping for.

The ’scientists’ (weathermen?) who’ve cried wolf won’t admit they’re wrong because they’ll lose funding and won’t be listened to again.

First the ad hominem attacks (dismissing several entire branches of science as “weathermen). Then, despite the fact that you claim not to believe in conspiracy theories, you dismiss the scientific consensus on the issue using a conspiracy theory. You claim to support science, yet you seem to have an extremely low opinion of scientists.

Sea levels ARE NOT RISING.

Do you have a source for this. Because what I can find says the exact opposite. For example:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html

TheBlackCat: I have read the comments. How do you deal with (to pick one example) the ‘claim’ that temperature is actually falling? (other than with a silly comment about ‘cherry-picking’ data) I thought that we were supposed to be worried about the temperature increase during the 20th century because of its’ unusual and unnatural rapidity – now it seems that natural climate cycles and/or solar cycles can overwhelm this and cancel it out – that does not make sense.

I’m a supporter of science and rationalism, I don’t believe in god, I don’t believe ANY conspiracy theories, am probably more ‘green’ than most of those on here (don’t own a car, don’t fly, have insulated my loft, every light in my house is low energy, etc.) BUT I’m one of the ‘deniers’ (people) who think AGW is total nonsense. Politicians love it (at least here in the EU) because it gives them another excuse to ramp up taxes and pretend to be morally superior – but that’s another matter.

Where is Phil’s insistence on ‘evidence’ above all else here? Sea levels ARE NOT RISING. Global temperatures have been FALLING since 2001 (Last winter here saw the first snowfalls in years and it was bloody FREEZING) evidence of rising temperatures IS NOT evidence that we are responsible. CO2 levels in the past have been far higher than now and so on and so on… The ‘scientists’ (weathermen?) who’ve cried wolf won’t admit they’re wrong because they’ll lose funding and won’t be listened to again.

How many of the AGW believers have sold their cars or done ANYTHING significant to ‘tackle’ climate change? “We’ve ‘done our bit’ and stopped leaving the TV on standby” – come off it! If you really believe the world is in serious danger, don’t post to a blog – put your money where your mouth is and DO SOMETHING!

Phil – Get back to the astronomy and off AGW and ‘Antivaxxers’ (who’s she?).

http://www.physorg.com/news160043689.html”

This link fails to support your assertion. While the evidence certainly suggests that the sun is more active in the 20th century than during the minima in the last few centuries, there is little evidence to suggest that the recent solar maximum is exceptional within the last few centuries (though there are a few studies that argue this point based on various proxies taken from ice core measurements). Within the current maximum, we have seen the natural solar variation expected from the 11 year cycle, so this isn’t a matter of the sun ramping up up up and then coming to a complete stop. The sun is sometimes less active and sometimes more. Currently, we are overdue for an upswing however.

The fact remains that there is only a little evidence, much of it circumstantial, that the sun is the primary cause of observed 20th century warming. Even in studies arguing for such a conclusion, there is question of attribution: to what extent is the sun responsible? I haven’t seen a single study that suggests that solar variation alone could have caused the degree of warming we had in the last century.

Not particularly. Unless you meant “weapon” instead of motive. That makes a little more sense, but what are motive and alibi similies for?

Sorry, I think it was just a bad analogy.”

“Weapon” would be the empirical evidence we have for CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Look, we could spend forever parsing the stupid analogy. It should be obvious that analogies can only correspond to what they’re being used to explain up to a certain point. If they corresponded exactly they wouldn’t be analogies. I tend to think you’re capable of parsing analogies into relevant and irrelevant dimensions and that you’re purposefully being obtuse to avoid conceding any more points, but I have to agree there’s a possibility that you’re just too dim to understand arguments by analogy.

So to be more literal, I’m saying there’s lots of evidence that CO2 is the root cause of 20th century global warming. There’s not a lot of evidence for anything else. Your proposition is that despite all this evidence we should just assume that the evidence is wrong and search for a new culprit for which there is currently no evidence and no need in terms of explanatory power. This directly violates Occam’s Razor. This is not how science is done. Sorry.

I tend to think that the definition of a denier is one who uses denialist tactics — moving the goal posts, argument by assertion, Gish gallop, etc. The “skeptics” above are deniers because rather than examining the evidence critically, they just parrot lines from Cato Institute policy papers.

If Plimer honestly believes CO2 has nothing to do with global warming and makes honest arguments to that effect, I would be willing to call him a skeptic rather than a denier. (I’m not actually familiar enough with his work to make that judgment.) I believe honest climate skepticism is possible; it’s just not what I see on internet comments pages.

3. Harrison Schmitt is a former Senator and extreme right winger.

Is that the same Harrison Schmitt who was on the Apollo 17 lunar landing?

2. Ian Plimer is the author of a book that has been totally discredited as being filled with errors and distortions.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/lambeck_on_plimer.php

Ian Plimer is an interesting case.

I’ve heard him speak and met him personally and when it comes to his fight against the Creationists esp. the “we found Noah’s Arwk” mob he is one of my heroes.

I think he is a decent, sincere bloke who passionately believes what he’s saying.

BUT

On this Anthropogenic Global Warming issue I think he is dead wrong.

I am most definitely with the majority of scientists – esp. those who have real expertise and years of knowledge when it comes to atmospheric physics and climatology – who say that Global warming is real and that the Anthropic Greenhouse Effect (AGE) is the primary cause.

I find it much harder to accept the wishful thinking idea that we are doing NO harm in our copious pollutings and constant emissions of gases and wholescale environmental alterations
than the reverse.

I also think Plimer’s argument of similarities between some extremist greens thinking and religious fundamentalists is missing the point. In fact its a non-sequiteur.

So what if some Greens have some kooky ideas, so what if Al Gore has moments of hypocrisy and less than perfection?

This has NOTHING to do with whether the ACTUAL SCIENCE and logical and physical case for the AGE are valid. All the evidence, all the reasonable, unbiased and actually experienced people in the area seem to agree the AGE is real and we do, indeed, need to do something urgently about it.

So .. the question then remains

Is Ian Plimer a ‘Skeptic’ or ‘Denier’?

On Creationism he’s a Skeptic, on the Greenhouse effect (GH FXT) a denier.

So sometimes people can be both … I think. Sometimes its not so clear-cut.