I picked up your wink, but I’m still not sure how to take your message. Let me just say that anyone who ignores valid evidence that challenges their belief is not a skeptic. Some other term applies.

Also, I wouldn’t lump the Moon landing into this. The only people who debate Moon landings are crazy cat people, people who want to make money from the crazy cat people and people who like to just get weird looks. There isn’t a concensus on it because it physically happened. It’s not a variable thing that might or might not be occuring. It’s nothing like climate change.

Yes, climate changes. How large is our role in it? That’s all I want to know.

Lastly, I’m all for renewable energy. Who wouldn’t be? Less pollution is a good thing! I’d rather take a ‘lets have a cleaner planet’ approach than ‘the sky is falling!’ approach. Eh?

Apparently you are more impressed by the 22 year long temperature run-up from 1976 to 1998. You might even be astounded by the research linked @135 which produced an excellent match of average global temperatures since 1895. That is 114 years…and counting.

According to the average of the five reporting agencies (four since Climategate), the average global temperature has not changed much for several years and during the seven years from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century.

With a standard deviation of…?

Cherry-picking is dishonest, incidentally.

So: Randi wrote a very dubious column about AGW, which he has now largely retracted. Limbaugh was fooled by an intentional spoof, admitted it, but still clings to his doubt of the mountain of evidence for AGW. I think it’s clear which of the pair is the true skeptic.

Er … Limbaugh?

Apparently the research that “accurately predicts average global temperatures since 1895″ in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true is too complex for you to grasp.

I understand cheesy curve-fitting just fine, thanks. Tried adding the number of pirates?

So you will just have to continue to wonder (along with Trenberth et. al.) why the cooling trend is down while the CO2 level continues to go up.

It isn’t.

But Randi has now admitted he was wrong. It’s useful to contrast his reaction to that of Rush Limbaugh, who made a similar mistake. In late 2007, a paper came out that claimed the increased CO2 was actually caused by oceanic bacteria. It was a spoof. Even though he was warned of this by a scientist, Limbaugh fell for it and proceeded to dump on AGW proponents in his typical fashion. Which he still does to this day. And the scientist had to apologize to Limbaugh for not warning him strongly enough!

So: Randi wrote a very dubious column about AGW, which he has now largely retracted. Limbaugh was fooled by an intentional spoof, admitted it, but still clings to his doubt of the mountain of evidence for AGW. I think it’s clear which of the pair is the true skeptic.

I know, some people will swallow anything. That lack of critical thinking annoys me too.
Some may trust an arrogant climatologist to tell an engineer he’s building his boat wrong.

Meanwhile, those who understand numerical integration, the first law of thermodynamics, and the difference between energy and power should be able to understand the paper. Some may simply accept the results derived by a licensed engineer with a MSc degree in Mechanical Engineering who has researched the subject for thousands of hours in pursuit of the truth. Others, well, like I said, “will just have to continue to wonder (along with Trenberth et. al.) why the cooling trend is down while the CO2 level continues to go up”.

But this whole kerfluffle seems to be an example of the polarization of our culture. In politics, there used to be coalitions that crossed party lines. Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans (yes, there were such critters) used to ally themselves with like minded politicians across the aisle and come up with workable policies that benefitted the commonweal. Of course, there were times when the system failed such as the late unpleasantness of 1861-65.

I think we are at risk of such a system failure again. Now, it seems, there is a siege mentality pervading much of our culture. (viz Fox News vs CNBC or 95% of AM radio) A few years ago, anyone unable to see how a bunch of Saudis attacking the World Trade Center justified attacking an Iraqi dictator (formerly an ally) was labelled an “America Hater.” This “either you’re with me or you’re against me” mentality is quite destructive. Everyone, it seems, is so convinced of the righteousness of their own beliefs that anyone holding a differing opinion is unworthy of consideration. Of such attitudes, are lynch mobs made.

This knee-jerk reactionary attitude is quite dangerous. Several months back, I took umbrage to one of Dr Plait’s posts where he seemingly promoted ad hominum attacks on those too stupid (or uneducated) to be sceptics like him and his supporters. And I fell into the same trap and unleashed a rather unseemly tirade. And promptly got my ass handed to me be several Plait fans and the kindly BA hisself. And I found myself apologizing for violating my own position that incivility will not help you constructively express your point of view.

I’ll shut up after this: On either side of any argument, the most untenable position will be that of a fanatic.

Your source is entirely consistent with my statement.

You are correct. My mistake.

BS

I agree. Cut the guy some slack. He’s earned it. I’m not suggesting to back off on the science, but I don’t think the data require us to pillory anyone for expressing their doubts or their ignorance. Let’s leave that to the dogmatists.

Randi’s post struck me as dipping his toe into a relatively unfamiliar AGW pool. Little suspecting there were so many sharks in there! It’s to his great credit that he admits his relative ignorance about the subject and is willing to be persuaded by the evidence. Isn’t that what skepticism is all about?

A fairly simple model accurately predicts average global temperatures since 1895.

If by ‘simple model,’ you mean ‘cheesy curve-fit,’ sure.

72. MartinM Says:

We are, of course, nowhere near that point.

Both wrong. (I didn’t learn about this until recently.) Check http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Your source is entirely consistent with my statement.