Plus, i’m SF now.

But watch these pages…i’m never ver far.

Amen !

I really appreciate your input, TCO. I was just trying to set a boundary for the content of this blog. Science: yes. Sustainability, yes. Politics , maybe. Epistemology, economics, sociology, hell yes.
Personal attacks : no.

CA and RC have their downsides… I wonder how long it takes for a blog ger to get “intellectually lazy”, if regular output is expected… I don’t know that i would fare much better in their shoes. That’s why there needs to be more than 1 source…

A. My evaluative comments on CA overall were meant as a thoughtful response to the title of your post which was “Auditing Climate Audit”. Given that as the subject, versus some specific technical issue, the comments were on topic.

B. I agree that points of McIntyre will be proven/disproven by examination of the specifics and that such is best done in a neutral forum. My point was that by choosing to publish in the forum that he has (CA) vice writing real papers (even discussion papers), he has obfuscated an ability to drill down and examine points. At times when I or Gerd has pushed Steve, he has been evasive. This is not the act of a truth-seeker. It is a result of profoundly confounding lawyerly argument and public promotion with scientific issue analysis. Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt have similar tendancies. It’s a form of intellectual laziness and non-forthrightness.

3. Please pursue truth where-ever it takes you. If it supports your liberal leanings or the reverse. It should be no matter. You should feel the joy of learning and of conveying understanding. Of reducing the mystery in the universe.

P.s. Check out the summer movies on the grass at Peidmont Park. (bring bug spray).

We skeptics NEED you do challenge, dissect, present the truth explaining why we are wrong.

Where did you go??

Yes, JEG, our conversation lags. I don’t have the certainty you desire; you don’t have the uncertainty I desire.

A bientot.
=======

“Perhaps i was excessive in saying that ‘most’ of the Opposition is made of obscurantists. I would be thrilled to see proof that they are made of rational, healthy skeptics who simply have not been put in presence of the overwhelming mound of evidence. But i am reminded every day of how many obscurantists there are in the media, and i don’t think i could ever fight them hard enough - there is indeed too much at stake.”

I guess you could label me a skeptic.

To place myself:

1. CO2 is rising.

2. Too much CO2 is bad

3. Global temps are rising.

And that’s where the “skeptic” comes in. The scientists say the temps are correct, yet there are still questions about the surface temps, such as:

1. It is being studied how the paint on the stevenson screens can cause a warming bias.

2. Microsite details could cause a problem with the accuracy of temps (and they’re using the Meteo France ratings, here).

3. They say that the satellites are more accurate, but even then, they admit it’s an ESTIMATE of temps. Not to mention there are TWO places studying that data, with a third independent study going on.

3a. They still have to get independant data from the poles, not covered by satellites.

4. Your “overwhelming mound” of data has a question too: There is a website that lists over 600 stories from the press, in which there’s but one thread: AGW causes X. Some show both sides of the same story.

5. The current global anomaly temp chart is referenced to a 30 year period, ening in the 80’s or 90’s. If they were to follow protocol and use the end of the century (2000), the TREND wouldn’t change, but the “zero” would rise, possibly putting some of their “warmest” years at zero or having negative anomalie.

Perception is everything, and I realize that the temps have risen .6 degrees above the anomaly, but I’m getting kind of tired of hearing a daily drum-beat of “unprecented” events.

So yes, I’m a skeptic, requiring more info: particularly about the accuracy of that “.6 degree” we keep hearing about.

Sorry about the long post.
- Not anon.

Very nice ! Great creative writing, but i’m afraid my science neurones are left cold. There are some true things in what you wrote (i said, some… there is also a whole lot of nonsense).
Now, when they suspect a process is important, what evil climate scientists (and other physicists) do is usually along the lines of :
- estimate the order of magnitude at stake with a back-of-envelope calculation
- if it is big enough, they try to find reliable data to back it up.
- to see of it affects climate at large, they put it into into a model along with relevant physical processes, and see if it significantly affects the result.

Of course, our models are not perfect. Yes, tropical convection is poorly represented, but it is the first time i hear an ionospheric explanation of that. Reference ?

As it stands, your argument is like saying : the Sun has a magnetic field, magnetic fields can move metal, cars are made of metal, therefore all cars are moved by the Sun.

Now, there could be some true physical relationships in what you wrote, but it is not of much help unless you can establish their quantitative importance.

Until you have done so, the argument is void.

Good luck !

Precisely,nuclear power is carbon free, so i’m not sure i get your point about free carbon.

You will notice I have been posting your comments since you have identified yourself (if somewhat coyly as well . How is ==== for a signature ?). I am not always sure it is a good idea, though, as you keep casting a scattered cloud of amorphous and tired contrarian arguments - but i do it anyway in the name of free speech.

Dodging is not my style. I think i’ve been pretty direct about expressing my views on solar influence on climate. To summarize : given current knowledge, it is plausibly important to explain Holocene climate change ; insufficient to account for the late XXth century warming alone.

I am sorry this does not lead me to eradicate the idea of anthropogenic global warming, because that is a very real thing with a lot less might’s and maybe’s.

If you do identify some valid physical mechanisms, and can show in a climate model that they do matter quantitatively, then i’ll take you seriously. For now you are just playing the usual game of AGW-denying for denying’s sake - and i have better things to do with my day.

But i’ll respond if you employ physically-sound arguments and valid references.

Regards,
El Niño