Bishop Hill HtL on winter temperatures
Dec 31, 2010 Climate: Surface Haunting the Library has dug out a wonderful statement from NASA back in 1999:
Why are winters warming up so much faster over Northern Hemisphere continents than over the rest of the globe? A new study by NASA researchers in the June 3 issue of the journal Nature is the first to link the well-documented large degree of North America and Eurasia winter warming and the associated wind changes to rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
Do read the whole thing. And when you are done, take a look at this rather wonderful article on the Fox News website, which revisits a number of alarmist claims from the past. I particularly liked this one:
By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Reader Comments (76)
Not everyone thinks that Fox News's articles are rather wonderful: The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Perhaps the Winters will be warmer because scientists aren't mathematicians.
I added up all the numbers from 1 to 10.
The total was 55.
There are 10 numbers (pay attention scientists) in the series 1 to 10.
I wanted to get the average for the 10 numbers in this series.
(Pay attention scientists)
I therefore divided 55 by 10.
This gave me 5.5.
(Pay attention scientists)
Now if you pretend that those numbers 1 to 10 were temperatures taken over a given period and you add them all up, you still get a total of 55.
(Pay attention scientists)
And then if you divide the sum of these temperatures (are you paying attention scientists?) by the number 10 (see above on how I came to this total), the average still comes out at 5.5.
So you see, scientists, you don't have to be mathematicians.
All you need is to know simple adding and dividing.
And if you can follow these straightforward rules of basic maths, you might just find that the Northern Hemisphere isn't warming as much as you would LIKE to think.
SIMPLES!
Peter Walsh
This is another classic men in tights post Andrew. It's a rather transparent attempt to undermine climate science by taking information from one scientist, information from another, and suggesting the inconsistencies mean all of the science is flawed.
This is clearly absolute rubbish. You should have been alerted by the blog you linked to degenerating into an anti-Monbiot rant, and ending in a slightly paranoid request to know who runs everything.
Guess what, all sciences progress, and climate science is at the stage where it's climbing a very steep knowledge curve. The quotes you highlight are from over a decade apart. Do you really expect there to be no changes in understanding in a fast-developing science over a period of time that great? The quotes are from different scientists. Were you under the impression that all climate scientists agree on all things?
What would be striking, would be climate science from the last millenium being in total agreement with current understanding, as that would mean there had been no progress. It would also be very worrying if all scientists agreed, as that would seem far more suggestive of the conspiracies so beloved of people who post on this site.
Frankly, your post is rather disingenuous. You're criticising progress and lack of consensus on some issues, which are precisely the things you call for more of when it suits your agenda.
Ah, Paul Erlich: the gift that keeps on giving.
"Guess what, all sciences progress, and climate science is at the stage where it's climbing a very steep knowledge curve"?
So not a settled consensus then ?
"It would also be very worrying if all scientists agreed"
Good so you are happy for there to be disagreement in the scientific community over this subject !,so why are you on here telling us we're all stupid/deniers for not believing what you say! if no can agree what should be said ? .
Oh and hope yer coping in the warming winter weather ?
Barbecue summers and mild winters prove global warming is true.
Cool wet summers and cold winters prove global warming is true.
Take the average: Normal summers and normal winters prove global warming is true.
You deniers are denying certainty.
So they were projecting, not predicting,
And they are right because their time scale is in error.
And Orwell is at rest in his grave.
@ZBD
Totally agree that science always moves on and the billions of pounds invested in climate change have been utilised to refine the theory and models over the last ten years.
From a globally blurred perspective that stated warming of several degrees we now have predictions down to regional levels as defined by colder harsher winters for the UK.
Of course with this level of application now the regional predictions can be made for other locations such as North America, Europe, Asia etc.
Now I have not actually read of the model prophesy for regions other than Europe but I would presume that you could direct me to sources giving the indications that the recent extreme weather in the rest of the regions was predicted. It would be interesting to find the sources.
Of course with all this refinement that gives regional indications of cold harsh winters for the majority of the Northern hemisphere it would be nice to see where the hot regions are that maintain the increasing temperature levels and how many temperature sources there are for these regions, I'm sure that this information will be made available.
It would also be interesting to see in the upcoming statements to be released in the new year about the hottest year on record how the greenhouse theory predicts future weather patterns that differ from the cyclic theory that suggests that we are now in a cooling period as it seems to me at least that the greenhouse theory is starting to morph into the cyclic theory with a bit of natural recovery from the LIA.
Still I am sure that we will learn soon that the cyclic theory is actually encompassed into the models and that the greenhouse theory can explain how the man made CO2 induced warming has altered the natural cycles to make them warmer/colder or at least fatally different from before.
It will be a certainty that whatever the weather that we face in the next decade that it is due to increased CO2 and it is our fault so the appropriate news outlets might as well start writing the columns now just leaving blanks to be filled in as required, heat, cold, +2 degrees, -2 degrees and then the government can still push forth with it's old boys school of making a mint from the peasants.
ZDB
Delighted to agree with one of your posts. But it's still good fun. A lot of people I knew at the time took Ehrlich very seriously. I thought he was nuts. But that wasn't the same as "knowing" he was nuts.
The "knowing" seems so much more challenging.
zeds,
We do not believe in conspiracy, not at this blog.
Criticism of this kind is meaningful, taking in a synthetic overview of the nature of predominant claims advanced by certain powerful and vocal activist members of the climate science community.
If you take such a view, many observed elements are jarring - the lack of increasingly mild winters in UK is certainly one that comes to mind first.
'Progress' in science comes from minds that are prepared to explore small or large inconsistencies between observation and theory. Several lines of inquiry in climate science are virtually at standstill because of these very activist scientists who have held on so hard and fast to their dear theories and do not hesitate one bit in selling their theories to the public. There has been no progress because of these entities.
Guess which 'group' insisted on reserving judgment a while longer?
If someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, he will quite rightly get his collar felt.
ZDB and the rest can try to put a smooth gloss on this, but the fact remains that the so-called "scientists" quoted in Fox's piece and all their chums in GISS, CRU, Potsdam Institute and all the rest are even more culpable than the "Fire!" shouter. The latter may cause a few dozen people to be trampled to death. The former have swinishly guzzled resources which could and should have been used to solve real problems. Clean water and affordable and reliable energy in the third world, for a start.
But that isn't all. With their hubristic claims to be able to extract "scenarios" for a hundred years hence, with their obvious underlying eco-fascist agendas, with their inept and fraudulent mangling of data, with their refusal to archive their work, with their perpetual shroudwaving, they are costing us billions right now in completely useless attempts to solve a non-problem and in the secondary costs to our society of having energy costs far higher than they need to be.
My own "scenario" is that these clowns will, before long, look out the windows of their ivory towers and see the shivering mob, pitchforks and burning torches in hand, assembling outside.
The sooner the better.
In the mean time, a lot of people will lose their jobs in the coming year. I just pray that the climate "scientists", their sycophant trolls, their Trades Unions (like the Royal Society), the lazy and idiotic press (Monbiot & Louise Gray, for a start), the carbon traders and the corrupt and incompetent politicians who have jumped on this bandwagon are all at the forefront of the dole queue.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Am I to understand that the current state of the art consensus is that global warming will lead to colder winters (in Europe, North America etc.) or is it just some papers which suggests this while others suggest the opposite? Assuming that it is the consensus/majority of papers which establishes the GW => cold winter link, was this understanding reached before or after the fact?
Also, if cold winters are now an expected consequence of GW, how come the models didn't predict the last couple of years of cold winters?
Zed, within the narrative of "settled science", "consensus" etc. it is perfectly fine to compare statements from different climate scientists. You do have a valid point, though, if the science was openly considered not settled 10 years ago and clearly communicated as such.
Zed
That seems a fair series of points to make.
As you point out matters in most endeavours evolve/change. (stocks may rise and fall yaddayadda).
I personally don't know what to think about the whole thing and can't claim any qualification to assert any view that I do have.
Does there seem to be any room for doubt as to the validity of current hypotheses?. I guess my question comes from the perspective that there is now a case to answer in the AGW debate.
Do you see and understand (I'm not expecting you to accept) my own position? including those of others I guess.
@ZDB
"all sciences progress, and climate science is at the stage where it's climbing a very steep knowledge curve"
Ha-ha! you don't say? Well, perhaps some folk should have the humility to volunteer that they don't know instead of spouting conceit driven alarmist bilge by the truckload.
There might have been some changes in understanding but there seems precious little change in interpretation does there?
1)You're all doomed
2)Give me some more money and I'll look at the tealeaves one more time
3)GoTo (1)
Not even when their core body temperature drops to ambient temperature will the "climate scientists" admit they got anything wrong.
Re Cmdocker
But with global warming, ambient temperature may be 37C or so and thus climate scientists can state their temperature is normal and they're thus not dead. In post-normal science, anything is possible simply by redefining normality. Or reality.
I do like the new spin though. Cold is a symptom of global warming and if not, it's all because of solar influences, which couldn't possibly have caused the warming and anyway is only delaying the inevitable catastophes when the sun wakes up again. So we're still doomed unless we do what we're told.
Favorite blast from the past though is this report of an exciting new paper showing why we're destined for milder winters..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm
'nuff said. So slight problem with the last 3 cold winters, and the Met Office's findings that wind speeds have been falling over much of N.Europe.
Tea pots and kettles from ZBD
"Frankly, your post is rather disingenuous."
Read back your own post that's starts with the same tiresome ad-hom that you use when you have absolutely nothing of value to add - just trolling. Yawn!
O/T but I'm sure everyone on here will be delighted that Robert Stewart Napier, Chairman of the MET Office and Thermageddonist Extraordinaire has been given a CBE in the New Years Honours List!
How agreeable!
I wonder what he might have got if the MET Office's predictions were half as good as Bill Froggatt's?
A hereditory Earldom?
ADB's post seems to me to be utterly dishonest.
If there are two things that have always been axiomatic among ecofascists, they are that
1/ the science is settled
2/ pretty well all scientists agree with them.
This pair of claims started in about 1988 IIRC.
It follows that anything one psychotic fool like Ehrlich says must be accurately reflective of what all "climate scientists" think. You can't argue, otherwise, that 40 years of lies, alarmism, and complete utter abject bullshit are somehow excusable because, y'know, science improves and that one scientists doesn't speak for all of them.
I'm afraid ecofascists must thus accept, maintain and defend every pitiful, dirty lie their stupid client anti-scientists have ever uttered, in pursuit of fame and funding. Their lies are Zed's lies. You don't get to deny them now, Zed.
Justice4Rinka, your post seems full of hate, abusive terms, wild allegations and rather hot under the collar. If I were to post in the same vein, my comments would be snipped in a heartbeat. Can I suggest that you undermine the efforts by this website to limit use of the term denier, when you brand people as fascists. You may also wish to tone it down a bit generally.
I think your comment to be thoroughly ill-informed.
The 97% consensus among climate scientists refers to the belief that AGW is the correct theory. The overwhelming consensus, when communicated to non-scientists, tends to lead to statements like 'the science is settled'. As far as AGW being the correct theory, we can treat as such to almost the same extent as evolution and gravity, which is pretty certain.
What is most certainly not settled, is some of the ways (weather) in which global warming will manifest itself. There is of course also much debate over the effects of various rises in temperature.
There are broad schools of thought on several of these subjects, but nothing like consensus to the same extent. That your were under the mistaken impression that is, shows how woefully unfamiliar you are with the subject.
However, from previous comments by you (if memory serves), you seem to think that the tittle-tattle of a rather over-excited Independent journalist from a decade ago somehow represents modern climate science, so I am very dubious regarding your choice of sources, and the import you attach to them.
"If I were a gambler ... "
The salary, tenure and pension rights of climate scientists should be tied, respectively, to the *accuracy* of their own short, medium and long term climate forcasts.
Global Warming and Climate Science in general are examples of post modern science. The rules have changed. Everyone here is getting fearfully indignant because they are trying to apply the merely modern rules to this exciting new way of doing science.
The essence of post modern science is that all propositions are of the same basic sort, they are simply testimony. They have no relevance to anything predictable or to public policy. Its very unfortunate that few of the practitioners have fully grasped this, or they would not feel any need for their pronouncements either to accord with events or to be consistent. They are testimony to the class origin, gender prejudices, geographical location of the utterer.
So for example when Professor Mann declared that the MWP had not ever existed, he was speaking not about any period in the historical past, but about himself, Albeit in coded form.
What we are now seeing is the gradual general recognition of the post modern nature of climate science. This is occurring when the argument is made that basically it is an error to try to falsify the theory by deriving predictions from it. That was very early 20c and is completely inappropriate to the modern form of Climate Science. It is indeed true that any Climate Science proposition is compatible with either warming or cooling of the planet. This is because none of its propositions, properly understood, assert anything about the planet.
They instead are emotional grunts showing that one is a member of a certain class or cultural group.
Similarly, it is idiotic to think that one should base any judgments about how many snow ploughs or sacks of grit to lay in. No post modern science can have any bearing on any of that. That is weather prediction, a much simpler and less interesting enterprise.
All in all I regard this realization of the fully post modern nature of climate science as a great step forward. It will spare us all endless irritation and endless intellectual striving to refute propositions which are irrefutable. And it will also save us a fortune. We will continue to dispatch delegates to Kyoto or Copenhagen or Cancun, they will contiinue to sign post modern treaties, but fortunately no-one in practical politics need pay any attention any more.
Global Warming, of course, is the greatest threat to humanity that has ever existed, it is far worse than the Black Death or terrorism or war. Lets drink to that. Good, now we got that out of the way, the ladies may retire, and leave the gentlemen to their port.
Zed
You are right about the use of "ecofascist" and "denier". Could everyone please refrain from this kind of language, even if redacted in some shape or form. Let's all try to avoid name-calling.
Is that so?
zeds, you are tottering on the edge of an epiphany here.
What indeed is the difference between what you say above, and the various 'men in tights' here? We poke fun at scientists and advocates, give them funny names occasionally - you speak of them favorably and with respect. That is not much of a difference, is it? The ire is directed specifically at one variety of the activist type, unlike an approach which insists on worshiping all scientists.
You seem to think and assume, that it is the skeptics and deniers with their ever-increasing shrill demands for consistency, that have herded the scientists into the crowded pen of consensus, between a rock and a hard place.
This is not correct.
If there are indeed "broad schools of thought on several of these subjects", but nothing like "consensus to the same extent" on the effects of rising temperature, then that is what we should have been told, by the scientists, by the advocates - by the Lynases, the Pachauris, by the Gleicks, the Coxs', the Schneiders and the Schmidts.
That is not what we heard. That is not what has been conveyed.
Secondly, what is 'AGW' but attribution of rising temperatures and its attendant effects to humankind. Which aspect of the change, are we now to believe, zeds, are surely 'AGW' and which others not?
Traditionally winter retreat for the consensus, by the way zeds, is the cave of precautionary principle. You can see this clearly, the consensus crowd cavorts in the wide rolling plains of the consensus pen, in the summer; the frolickers then huddle into the precautionary principle cave during cold winters. The flock just became a bit bolder this year and got buried in the snow.
your supporter
Shub
Z's - "As far as AGW being the correct theory, we can treat as such to almost the same extent as evolution and gravity, which is pretty certain"
To you have a citation for gravity, or is that just a gut feeling?
"zeds, you are tottering on the edge of an epiphany here."
Dec 31, 2010 at 3:21 PM | Shub
Epiphany my well-toned arse.
Most of the climate science I've read debates the differences between bad, badder and ultimo-bad when it comes to the future consequences and extent of global warming. It all agrees that we're more to blame than any other factor.
The difference between that, and the various people gathered under the Bishop Hill banner, is that people here believe anything except that, often wildly varying:
- some people here believe that humanity cannot affect the climate
- some believe there to have been no warming
- some believe that there has been warming, and humanity is to blame, but it's not a problem.
- some believe that there genuinely is a conspiracy amongst thousands of scientists, politicians, lab workers, journalists etc. to act dishonestly to perpetrate a massive fraud for reasons of tax/grants/one world govt/oppress the population etc.
On that last point, I noticed your comment earlier about this not being a conspiracy theory site. When I can be bothered (probably not today), I shall go back through threads, and show you comment after comment from conspiracy theorists here, none of which are challenged. Which, tacitly, means this is a conspiracy theory website.
Returning to the matter in hand, the viewpoints I raised above, are not actually compatible. Someone who thinks we're cooling, is fundamentally opposed to someone who thinks we're heating but there is nothing that can be done to change it, and we should be learning to adapt. This wouldn't work, and would lead to endless specialied sites for all the different opposition (n.b. Andrew - note how clumsy the word 'opposition' is here? This is where 'denier' really comes in handy as everyone knows what it means. Can you suggest a descriptive word for all the people I mean if you don't like 'men in tights') groups.
I've always been puzzled by the way that outrageous comments here are not challenged. Clearly you're all misguided, but you're not all bad eggs. However, I've now figured out that you are united only by opposition, a logically incoherant position. Thus must hold tongues when views you do not agree with are aired, as long as they ( again, 'deny' would be really handy here) disagree with consensus, or the site would collapse in infighting.
This has ended up very rambling - my apologies. Still, it feels like I've said something kind of worthwhile, and obviously I'm right and you're all wrong. Happy New Year to all you (it would be really handy to use the word 'deniers' about now) Bishop Hill types.
Re ZDB
Or even misunderstandings about what the '97%' means, which is explained here-
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf
where you start with an impressively large sample, then cherry pick down to 'qualified' scientists who provide the right answer. Which is 75 out of the 77 unknown participants in that survey. Doesn't sound quite as impressive, but then the whole history of global warming has been about exageration.
Dec 31, 2010 at 3:57 PM | Atomic Hairdryer
*sighs* - so use the Anderegg paper then. Of course you have problems with the 97% figure, however it's calculated, or you wouldn't be posting here. The important thing, no matter what nits one picks with the two papers which provide the 97% figure, is that if it was too far off the mark, there would be a paper in a flash like the Anderegg and Doran papers, which shows them to be wrong.
The lack of such a paper, and indeed of published peer-reviewed papers showing AGW to be incorrect, tends to give further support to the 97% figure being on the money.
I can't help but wonder, Zed, if scientists early on didn't stake out a position that they're now reluctant to abandon, sort of like the Millikan affair. The Climategate emails hint at scientists being displeased by some water temperature analysis and asking for adjustments (I don't want to get into what they actually meant to say, yada yada yada, just what they seem to have said), and I'm constantly shocked by how vociferously William Connelly and others defend some pretty tenuous science (eg pretty much any of Mann's papers). What have they learned post 1990 that has reinforced their belief in an AGW-induced catastrophe? and what have they learned that doesn't? While we're at it, what would disprove the theory of AGW?
pax
I believe this is something suggested by some papers, such as Lockwood's, but a number of other climate scientists disagree, pointing out that winters in Europe and North America have been warmer on average in recent decades than previously. You should also bear in mind that though there have recently been unusually cold temperatures in some regions, other regions, such as Greenland and parts of Canada have been unusually warm - though this has not been so widely reported, presumably due to the low population densities of those regions.
Whilst global climate models have been very sucessful at predicting global temperatures, predicting regional variations is far more difficult.
'deniers'
We were asked by the bish in a very nice way not to use this name calling and still you persist ! , also zed if there is an "outrageous" statement in the comments that you can prove is libellous or lies then do so!
'put up or shut up' is a well worn but in your case a useful phrase !
el
If you could demonstrate that gases long known to be greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and methane, were in fact not greenhouse gases, that they did not contribute to the greenhouse effect, then you would have shown that human emissions of those gases could not possibly be contributing to the observed warming. The trouble is, the evidence that these gases are potent greenhouse gases is strong and compelling, it can easily be demonstrated and this knowledge goes back a long way. Over 100 years ago Svante Arrhenius predicted that continued burning of fossil fuels would lead to rises in global temperatures.
Atomic Hairdryer
Add to the Doran study the statements on climate science made by national scientific academies:
ZDB
Why were Doran and Zimmerman so coy about the remaining seven answers to their nine question survey, to Earth Scientists? Might those Earth Scientists have been slightly more probing, such as for some opinions on CO2 emissions and their significance, for instance? I prefer full disclosure of poll results, rather than just a couple of crass ones, personally. Just to help show there's no hanky panky, you see.
Dec 31, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Pharos
Pharos - I refer you to my answer to Atomic Hairdryer above, on the same subject, which answers your question.
Atomic Hairdryer
Increasing solar irradiance is thought to have been responsible for much of the warming during the early 20th century but studies have shown that the sun cannot be the primary cause of the warming over recent decades.
ZDB has confirmed my suspicions that the recent falsification of current AGW theory is now to be spun such that in fact they were right all along. The central thesis will remain, despite the fact that it has been well and truly discredited, but new consequences will be invented to justify support of the paradigm.
Frankly, I'm a little shocked and awed that ZDB can't see the error in all of this. He talks about science progressing, but in fact the reverse is true: an ugly fact or two seems to make no difference whatsoever.
That isn't progress, is it?
"*sighs* - so use the Anderegg paper then"
The Anderegg paper is brilliant! Even with my poor understanding of statistics I can see from reading the paper for myself just how the results have been skewed to get the desired answer. If this is typical of the climate science approach to statistics then I can see that Wegman, McShane and Wyner and even His Grace in HSI could very well all be right.
"Add to the Doran study the statements on climate science made by national scientific academies:"
Is it known how many of those societies asked (polled, surveyed etc) all their members to see what their collective position should be or was the position decided by only a small group of officials?
legjoints
"Greenland and parts of Canada have been unusually warm - though this has not been so widely reported, presumably due to the low population densities of those regions."
Not to mention the low density of thermometers.
Increasing solar irradiance is thought to have been responsible for much of the warming during the early 20th century but studies have shown that the sun cannot be the primary cause of the warming over recent decades.
All that study shows is that all of the warming cannot by solely caused by the sun, however it does not say what caused the non-sun warming. When Jones was asked why he said it was CO2 he said it was because they could not find another cause other than CO2 (helped by a lot of positive feedback). The positive feedback bit has never been observed so even raw CO2 warming cannot account for the increase (which has flatlined since 1998)
Hardly awe-inspiring stuff, its CO2 because we can't think of anything else. In any other branch of science that logic would be laughed at.
Whilst global climate models have been very sucessful at predicting global temperatures, predicting regional variations is far more difficult.
Another fallacy, the models can't even get the global temp rise correct either.
Zeds happy new year to you and all who visit this site. Your posts on this article show what is wrong with you. You complain about names and vitriol against you, you are backed up by Bish, you then descend to the same level of name calling against the people at this site. This is par for the course when dealing with most on your side of the debate. The science is not settled and the debate is taking place. Thanks to this site and others like it.Have you tried looking and posting on Judith Curry 's site?
Firstly, the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded, so the idea that global temperatures have not risen since 1998 is ridiculous. 1998 was an exceptionally warm year, due to a quite exceptional el Nino - the rest of the 1990s were far cooler (though still warmer than the 1980s on the whole). In order to see the trend in temperatures over the noise of cyclic variations you need to look at decades rather than years.
Secondly, no one says that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can account for all of the observed warming. The IPCC states that most of the warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to human activities, where human activities include emissions from our burning of fossil fuels along with methane from landfill and agriculture plus changes in land use such as deforestation (removal of carbon sinks).
Firstly, the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded, so the idea that global temperatures have not risen since 1998 is ridiculous.
1998 is listed as the record year, so if no year since then has beaten it then how can temps be increasing.
The last decade is the warmest even though the temps have flatlined as the temps have yet to start the decrease.
When a blinkered zealot of the consensus self-obliviously declares that "all climate scientists do not agree on all things" and that there is a "debate" about the effects of the rise in temperature, the consensus is indeed floundering on its last legs, the well-toned arse notwithstanding.
legjoints
Whilst global climate models have been very sucessful at predicting global temperatures, predicting regional variations is far more difficult.
Right now, the entire northern hemisphere is buried in snow. So it appears that they can't even get hemispheric temperatures correct. It is one thing to create computer modeled "data" and another to actually measure it. Dreadnought had it correct with his observation of
As someone living in California, I find the statement that we have just had one of the warmest years on record totally laughable.
Re: legjoints
You are conveniently forgetting the second (and most crucial) part of the theory. And that is that the net effect of climate feedbacks is positive and that that is what produces the catastrophic warming.
There are very few skeptics (at least amongst those that I know) who dont believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Peter Whale.
Honestly, not trying to indulge in name calling. It would be hard not to interpret Justice4Rinka's comment as anything other than pretty full on, and I felt it particularly necessary to call him/her up on it, as the terms used were, in my opinion, much stronger than that the term 'denier', something Andrew has asked me not to use. It seems Andrew agrees, which is all for the best, as, stroppy though I can sometimes be, it's not to my credit, and civillity is far more productive.
I am genuinely stuck over what term to use though, to describe 'you lot'. I'm not going to use sceptic, as it doesn't quite catch everyone. On a personal note, I think it lends a scientific legitimacy which I'm not prepared to universally extend to the commentors here.
Denier is verboten, although it is my preferred term. I can concede it is historically loaded, and I do perhaps partly like the term because it has a whiff of contempt and a trace of truth value.
I thought 'men in tights' might get around the problem as everyone knows what I mean, and it doesn't take itself too seriously, but Andrew's asked me to steer clear of that one as well.
Which leaves me bereft of a catch-all term for 'you lot'. If Andrew or anyone else can suggest a decent one to fill the linguistic hole, I'll be happy to use it.
Shub
The consensus is regarding AGW being the correct theory and that is stronger than ever. The debate is over the finer points. I think few climate scientists would claim the consensus is as strong over these.
Breath of Freash Air
I don't think you've understood Legjoints' comment. One can only try and make a case for flatlining temperature rise if you use a very short time scale, which is not the correct way of looking at climate. If, as already suggested by Legjoints, you look over decades, which is much more sensible, then temperatures are still on the rise.
Re ZDB
Sceptic is good. Also quite like truthseeker. Your rather odd 'men in tights' could work, especially if abbreviated to MIT, so a bit of reputation by association in the same vein as Woods Institute. I'm still puzzled by your idea of scientific credibility, especially after channelling the Anderegg paper for support. That wasn't really a science paper, more sociology but still managed to get it's methodology and statistics wrong. That seems par for the course though for many popular climate scientology papers.
Anyway, another year beckons, so I'm off to free some naturally produced CO2. Happy New Year all!
Zed
It's a genuinely interesting problem.
I understand your frustration about the d-word, but I dislike it intensely for the historical reason, and because - as I have told you before - it does not apply to me. Since I agree with AGW.
I can't remember if you've tried 'contrarian' yet, so that might do as a stop-gap if not already ruled out for some reason.