No challenge

Even in the season of goodwill to all men, the mispresentation of the climate debate continues apace. This morning we had Professor Steve Jones interviewed yet again on the subject of BBC coverage of science, with the great man once again given the opportunity to portray the climate debate as being between "science" and "deniers".

Once again I wonder whether the BBC has ever interviewed a denier, in the sense of someone who disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect. Once again I wonder why the BBC feels that we need to have this false representation of the debate put forward. And once again I wonder at the failure of the BBC's interviewers to challenge it.

The audio is below.

Jones Today Prog

Comments

[handcar]

But why does disagreement with you condemn a soul to Denier hell?
Dec 26, 2013 at 9:01 PM RM

RM Please pay attention. As I said before: I don't have a definition for "denier". It's someone whose opinions on matters related to climate I disagree with. That's why.

[RichieP]

Stop responding to the troll. It wastes good electrons and time and space here. It is pointless as he/she/it has no status other than as a foolish brainwashed believer. Like any child he/she/it will stop when you entirely ignore it.

[Martin A]

A denier would say that the downwelling long wave radiation from CO2 does not exist,despite the fact that it can be measured and monitored. I have encountered both on this site.
Dec 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - please explain how downwelling radiation from CO2 is measured and monitored (separately from the total downwelling radiation, primarily from H2O...)

[papertiger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHZJ_PLFVsQ Mid-air explosion of a Syrian helicopter. Point to where the "back radiation" happens.

Oops. No you can't. Because there is none.

[Brendan H]

In the context of the climate debate, a definition of denial would be the refusal to accept that man-made climate change could be serious enough to require collective action now to head off any future negative effects.

The dividing line between warmers and sceptics is mitigation.

People should try to refrain from badmouthing their opponents.

[geoffchambers]

Here’s the intro to the programme. A part of me wants to string the journalist up from a lamppost. Another part of me wants to do the same to those commenters here who engage with someone whose only purpose is to derail discussion before it starts. Instead I’ll plod on with transcribing the programme. Thanks Your Grace for pointing out this stuff. Thanks Alex Cull for putting it up on his blog Mytranscriptbox. And to the rest of you, season’s greetings

When you hear science reported on this programme and others, or see it reported in the papers, do your eyes roll in horror? Scientists complain sometimes that science coverage is often slapdash and jejeune in a way that wouldn’t be acceptable in coverage of the arts. Our guest editor, Sir Tim Berners Lee wonders whether scientific research is properly treated by broadcasters and others. In particular, are we liable to present both sides of an argument, when only one side actually makes any rational sense? Professor Steve Jones the geneticist is here. He led a review of the BBC’s science coverage, and Connie St Louis is a senior lecturer in Science Journalism at City University and is on the line. Good morning to you both. Steve Jones, do your eyes roll in horror? I mean, and particularly on that last point, that Tim Berners Lee makes, that you hear two sides of an argument, a scientific argument, presented, where sometimes actually you shouldn’t.

[Hilary Ostrov]

Setting aside the thread derailing chirps from chandra ... Bish had commented:

Once again I wonder why the BBC feels that we need to have this false representation of the debate put forward. And once again I wonder at the failure of the BBC's interviewers to challenge it.

It seems to me that it's not unreasonable to assume that, by now, the programming powers that be at the BBC have read the submissions to the HoC's Energy and Climate Change Committee's "IPCC 5th Assessment Review". If these green-heart-on-sleeve interviewers and programming powers that be have examined these submissions in anything that might approach a reasonable and objective way, they will have realized (and perhaps become somewhat alarmed at!) the trite and tired (as opposed to tried and true) submissions from the "establishment" organizations and voices.

Particularly in light of the many articulate submissions from those who recognize the obvious shortcomings of AR5 WGI.

For example, the submission from Professor Pierre Darriulat, an "independent physicist", whose field of expertise is far more relevant to any discussion of climate science than that of a snail expert, geneticist Steve Jones. Some excerpts from Darriulat's submission (bold text and extra para breaks inserted by me for ease of virtual reading):

Summary

The AR5/WG1 IPCC report, and particularly the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), conveys an alarmist evaluation of the influence on the climate of anthropogenic C02 emissions that does not properly reflect current scientific knowledge. This results in part from the ambiguity inherent with asking scientists to express themselves consensually on what they think is the best message.

There is a need to produce a scientific summary addressed to scientists and giving an objective picture of our knowledge and ignorance in climate science, with emphasis on the issues that are less well understood and what it implies to clarify them. Such a summary should pay particular attention to a number of contentious issues that have been identified by a number of climate scientists who do not share the alarmist interpretation of the science.[...]
[...]
3. What we are witnessing are successive distortions of the scientific message of the AR5 report on the Physical Science Basis: first from the report to the SPM by those who wrote and/or amended the SPM, then from the SPM to the press by those who speak in the name of the IPCC (including the IPCC chairman) then from the press to the general public by green activists who too often behave irresponsibly in misrepresenting the findings of the work.

4. It is wise to pay attention to the possible damage that anthropogenic C02 emissions may imply for humanity. We have become conscious over half a century of the fragility of the planetary equilibrium that is necessary for our survival. Actions that may be necessary cannot· be decided in an atmosphere of panic and under the pressure of urgency. They require deep thinking and take time. [...]

5. It is sensible to ask for a scientific summary of the IPCC work, not addressing policy makers but as objective as possible a summary of the present status of our knowledge and ignorance about climate science. Such a report must refrain from ignoring basic scientific practices, as the SPM authors blatantly do when claiming to be able to quantify with high precision their confidence in the impact of anthropogenic C02 emissions on global warming. [...] (italics in original -hro)

But speaking of interviews with climate scientists who do not toe the IPCC/UNFCCC green party line ... for those who might have missed it, I would strongly recommend a recent one-hour interview, Judith Curry on Climate Change by Russ Roberts at "EconTalk". Roberts is a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute.

[Alex Cull]

@ filbert cobb, many thanks for the alert re the Paul Nurse segment earlier in the programme, here's what he says:

Paul Nurse: Why is it that we're living with better health and a greater quality of life, and have a growing global economy? Ultimately, much of it is built on science and the applications of science - medicines, electricity, intelligent phones, protecting the environment, the internet - are all based on the knowledge we gain from science.

Science is a reliable way of generating knowledge about the natural world and ourselves, because of the way it is done. Good science is based on reproducible observation and experiment, to generate ideas, taking account of all the evidence and not cherry-picking data. It is about scepticism, and if the ideas do not stand up, then they need to be rejected or modified, and then tested again.

Scientific issues are settled by the overall strength of the evidence, combined with rational, consistent and objective argument. Scientists have to convince their often critical colleagues that their ideas are valid. If they cannot, then their ideas are unlikely to be right. That is why we should listen to the majority views of expert scientists, rather than the extremists on important issues such as climate change.

These features distinguish science from ideology or politics, where adversarial or lobbying approaches are often used to win an argument at any cost, but in the end, evidence-based science will win out. And when science wins, we all win, because our improved knowledge allows us to make better decisions about what we should do in the future.

It was this approach that helped make Britain great during the Industrial Revolution. Our scientists and innovators followed their ideas. They tested them rigorously and they produced results that drove industrial progress. The results included our railways, increased food production, textiles and ceramics, many great achievements.

In Britain, we are good at science, and it serves us well. We just need to persuade our politicians, our business leaders and our opinion formers, that if we nurture it more effectively, science can do so much more for us, in terms of improving our lives and driving our economy.

I think the answer to his first question is: "To a large extent, cheap energy generated from the burning of fossil fuels".

[geoffchambers]

Here’s Steve Jones’s response to the journalist’s question.

Steve Jones: Um, I’m sorry to say that when I wrote that report for the BBC Trust, um, the general tone of the document was very positive. I mean I think the science coverage by the BBC and indeed by much of the media is very very good. So I think we need to accept that first. But having said that, what I found most of all was not that the BBC or the media in general don’t understand science itself, they don’t understand the concept of science, the way it’s done, and there are always arguments between scientists, there - naturally there are - scientists are desperately disprove somebody else’s ideas, so there are arguments, sometimes full of argument, but science moves on. So you don’t - to go to the obvious example - with climate change, um, I think it’s now a universal consensus among scientists climate change is real, it’s almost certainly caused by human efforts, and yet there’s this almost nervous tic by the media that if you’ve got a climate change scientist on, you must have a climate change denier. And it’s interesting that several newspapers - the Los Angeles Times for example - have decided to stop covering the anti-climate change camp, um, “clowns led by crooks” I think they call them ararara and the BBC hasn’t got through to that yet.

“Ararara” said the snail man. And “the BBC hasn’t got through to that yet,” thank Gaia.
Of that colossal , boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Shamelessly, I announce that I’ll be saying what I really think of Steve Jones soon on my own blog. His Grace, in His Politeness, wouldn’t let me.

[Chandra]

Yertizz, you are a case in point.

Mdgnn, weren't you going to publish a paper on your pseudo-scientific preoccupations? How is that going?

RM, sensitivity is obviously an area of much doubt and speculation. But that is not what I was referring to, rather those who question CO2 as a GHG but don't want to say so directly because they will seem potty. You also don't seem to understand my drift: basing ones opinions on a rag-bag of falsehoods and ignorance makes one either a denier or an ignoramus. I'll admit that I'm inclined to think (but with no solid evidence) that the latter is more likely here. And since when was identifying what someone apparently honestly, but definitely quite openly, believes an ad-hom? The point is that the consensus on cancer is not damaged by the odd fruit cake and neither is that on AGW (that cancer is not his area of expertise make one wonder why Phillip Morris paid him).

As for Christy, you could look up some ad-homs for him yourself, but I found a tasty morsel from some time back:

Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing - indeed encouraging - the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

HaroldW, where did I say that I had "high confidence" in the explanations? I pointed out that there are explanations, which nobody who conforms to my portrayal ever would. Their story is just, Arctic melting? Yeah but look at the Antarctic! And I doubt you'll find any scientist who claims that climate models are perfect.

Rc, quite right.

[papertiger]

Oops. You forgot someone.

Nevermind that "back radiation" doesn't exist.

[Pharos]

I'm coming tothis a bit late and a having imbibed a bit too freely, but I recall Jones being pilloried after his infamous flat earth diatribe in the Telegraph a couple of years ago ( including, near the end, the rebukes of the (now Late) Sir Patrick Moore). That his repertoire of insult toward sceptics has not moved on from the tired 'flatearthers' Gordon Brownism displays a remarkably stagnant imagination.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/steve-jones/8675729/Scientists-always-anger-those-who-prefer-the-Earth-to-be-flat.html

[jaffa]

IMO what's worse than the name-calling is the fact that so many, otherwise sensible, people are fixated on it. So upset that a single word dominates many threads here and elsewhere.

The alarmists probably can't sleep for laughing when they achieve this diversion - every time - exactly as intended. Is there anyone, who's opinion matters to you, who really associates you with a 'holocaust denier' because of what these clowns say? Get over it, it's the name callers who look bad.

[jones]

Could be worse....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/26/so-much-ice-in-antarctica-that-a-research-vessel-gets-stuck-in-summer/

[Mooloo]

BTW - your point on Lindzen is pure ad hominem. Lindzen's expertise is climate science (unlike Jones).

Chandra is adopting the standard technique here for dealing with the annoying issues of a non-consensus consensus. It goes like this:

1) there is a consensus among climate scientists,
but
2) there is a climate scientist who apparently doesn't believe the consensus,
ergo
3) that person isn't actually a climate scientist, because if he was he would believe the consensus.

It's known sometimes as the "True Scotsman" fallacy.

Since the academic credentials of Lindzen are impeachable regarding climate, they have to focus on the "scientist" part. Hence they bring up utterly irrelevant matters to show that he can't actually be a scientist. Not a "real" scientist, therefore not a "real" climate scientist. And the consensus is restored.

You may scoff at its witlessness, but they do it consistently, but only to those on the wrong side of the consensus. Those of the right side with dodgy beliefs (Suzuki, for example) do not get the same treatment.

[geronimo]

Dec 26, 2013 at 10:34 PM | Registered Commenter Martin A

"EM - please explain how downwelling radiation from CO2 is measured and monitored (separately from the total downwelling radiation, primarily from H2O...)"

Good luck with that one Martin.

[Ecclesiastical Uncle]

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Two separate points:

1. It is difficult for me to accept the idea that we should never feed the troll. The arguments on this blog are (or maybe should be) with trolls, otherwise the blog declines into an indignation meeting.

Now, of course, there are trolls and trolls. When ZDB is in one of her (not much doubt about that I think) more aggressive moods there is often not much to be said and a polite silence is maybe appropriate.

But, in my view Chandra is worth addressing because he spouts his nonsense at a level of detail that (a) corresponds to the interests of a great number of the cognoscenti who populate this blog, and (b) is routinely the stuff of the arguments of more weighty CAGW enthusiasts. It is surely possible that examination of the arguments he presents will lead to insights into typical CAGW thinking and the development of reasoning that might, hopefully, in due course, convince them of the error of their current ways.

(2) I observe that the CAGW war is often between cohorts who have been brainwashed at vastly different costs. Maybe the majority of contributors to this blog who fall into the sceptic camp were brainwashed at considerable cost, probably of their local authority, and have, as a result, a fairly well developed sense of the unreality of the CAGW consensus and of the harm that actions to mitigate it will bring.

On the other hand, many of the CAGW crowd appear to have been brainwashed at negligible cost. Maybe they should reflect that lack of investment would probably result in a poor job and that their beliefs are more likely to be mutually inconsistent and plain evil than those held by those who were the more thoroughly dealt with..

Of course, it is a complex world and one explanation does not fit everybody. Similar arguments fit Sir Paul and Prof Steve because their indoctrination was in unconnected subjects and the sophistication of the reasoning they are able to bring to the case for CAGW matches that of the el-cheapo lot.

But what about Prof Phil and the UEA crowd? They don't fit this analysis very well. It must be because of the comfort of a life funded by taxpayers has proved stronger than past brainwashing.

Mind you, there are grains of comfort here: (i) brainwashing is not invincible, and (ii) present realities are powerful. (Maybe new realities will convince Prof Phil and the UEA crowd to see the error of their current ways.)

Me? I'm so old I can't remember what being brainwashed was like.

[geronimo]

Dec 26, 2013 at 3:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterClive Best

"Politicians are currently making a pigs ear of energy policy."

Look, I agree with most of what you're saying but that one sentence makes my case. The politicians are making a pig's ear of energy policy precisely because they have followed the solutions proposed by scientist activists. If they had spread their net wider to get a solution someone might have pointed out that it is ridiculous for a country that contributes 1.8% (and falling) to the total output of CO2 from human emissions to make any attempt at reducing them as it is fruitless. Someone else might have pointed out the uselessness of windmills and solar as power sources - excepting those in the solar/power industries - and that the subsidies to these useless power sources would be best spent on developing clean nuclear power. Or if there was a sociologist/economist in the room they may have pointed out the devastating effects of having no energy available on industry and the vulnerable, or an engineer might have told them that blackouts would occur without a proper engineering road map.

But they weren't there, FoE were there waving a big heavy handbook produced by scientists saying the only solution was a reduction of CO2 emissions.

[Brute]

It might just be me but, when I take a look at the quality and intentions of the people accusing others of being deniers, I cannot avoid thinking that being a denier is a very, very good thing.

[geronimo]

I'm with Brute, I don't mind being called a "denier" in a clear attempt to label my views as horrible as holocaust deniers because it indicates to anyone who stops for one minute that those calling me a denier don't have cogent arguments to persuade me of their beliefs.

[sandyS]

Ecclesiastical Uncle
The problem I have with Chandra is that he is convinced of the righteousness of his position therefore anyone challenging AGCC or some research by climate scientists is a denier. There is never any backup evidence to his position of support for a specific item of discussion, only a you are wrong argument from authority. When challenged enough he will often say "I don't know if/about ...but you are still wrong". With Entropic there are references for discussion/argument; the difference is like having a disagreement with a 12 year old and an adult.

[Mydogsgotnonose]

@chandra: I have just got to the stage where I have experimental evidence proving the conventional understanding of Tyndall's Experiment is wrong, specifically that thermalisation of GHG-absorbed IR cannot occur in the gas phase so it must be at heterogeneities with condensed matter. It has been a long journey but others, e.g. Brookhaven Nat. Lab. are also applying engineering thermodynamics to convert Climate Astrology to Climate Science.......:o)

[Martyn]

"I don't have a definition for "denier". I just know one when I see one".

Magic mirror in my hand, who is the most fanciful person in the land?

[jamspid]

Legendary cockney actor Danny Dyer has just taken over as the new landlord of The Queen Vic in Albert Square.

Danny Dyer has an infamous tough guy image but famously believes in UFOs

Danny Dyer was given a platform on BBC3 to discuss his believes and interview various different people including the late great Astronomer Patrick Moore about the existence of advanced Extra Terrestrial life visiting this planet.

Danny Dyer is allowed by the BBC to exercise his right to Democratic Free Speech but not Climate Change Skeptics

Seems the BBC is Denying Rights to the Deniers.

[TerryS]

"I don't have a definition for "denier". I just know one when I see one".
"I may not be God but I know sin when I see it."
"I know god exists because I can feel him."
"Then ye shall know the Devil by his works."
...

I guess its an article of faith rather than one of knowledge. I don't object to people having faith, I just wish they wouldn't confuse it with knowledge.

[Alan Reed]

I don't have a definition for "Catastrophist". I just know one when I pay one.

[The Leopard In The Basement]

Thanks to Geoff and Alex for the transcripts of Jones and Nurse. Listened to Jones too.

It's interesting to note a similarity for both of these guys. At one time both of them thought they had a flesh and blood "denier" in the form of Nigel Lawson in their sights that they could use as a bogey man to wave at the world, and in both cases they couldn't get it right. Nurse outright lied about Lawson and has since been wriggling away without directly acknowledging this fact, and Jones had to correct his reference to Lawson in his report.

So it shouldn't be surprising to see them both slunk back to the relative safer territory of merely hand-waving about "deniers" especially, as we see in the Jones interview, seemingly in the safe assurance that no actual further inquiry will be made about exactly what they mean or if they can give further specific examples.

Also both these guys seem to be of the scientism bent that holds that science will be the future foundation of policy and moral development, and tired old institutions and concepts such as free speech can somehow be trumped by "science" certainty. Yet today we can see both these two examples of science respectability weaseling out of their mistakes.

If the scientism proponents can be seen to fail so ineptly like this, at the first basic hurdle of common human good faith, then it certainly undermines any future attempts to overrule the hoi polloi on policy, speech and morality. ;)

[bullocky]

Clive Best writes;

'To equate proving that the Earth is flat to proving that the Earth will not warm more than 2C, just shows Prof. Jones complete ignorance of the debate'

It is profound condescension on the part of Prof. Jones, to reduce the debate to this level of simplicity for the benefit of the disciples.
It is also sound comprehension that this is apt.

[Clive Best]

Geronimo,

"The politicians are making a pig's ear of energy policy precisely because they have followed the solutions proposed by scientist activists."

We are basically in agreement but..

The (climate) science activists just warn of doom unless carbon emissions are cut. They then wash their hands of responsibility. Instead it is the NGOs which take up the politics to lobby the public and propose "green solutions" which the politicians follow believing the green spin will win them votes. Meanwhile we are heading for power cuts next year.

What we should have done is to have had an open science/engineering debate about future energy options first , before embarking on ill informed renewable targets which won't make a speck of difference to the climate. If just 10% of wind subsidies were instead invested in nuclear research we might just get somewhere.before 2050.

[GrantB]

Climate science is awash with proxies - some good, some not so. I quite like being called a denier. It is a useful and robust proxy for the measurement of stupidity and ignorance. The person using it can be immediately treated as an idiot and ignored.

It works every time for me.

[Ivor Ward]

I wonder if Chandra is one of Al Gores' "Climate Reality Leaders" with his script and green labels all prepared to go out in the world and spread the Gospel according to Gore. He certainly writes in text bites. No development of ideas other than quotes and random references so he obviously does not understand what he is quoting. His biggest and most thoughtful riposte is ""Deniers is indeed the wrong epithet. Ignoramuses fits better."" I somehow don't think that that is going to set the world of creative literature on fire or change the course of science. Shame really.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/merry-griftmas-from-al-gore/#more-99853

[Richard Drake]

I've met Tim Berners-Lee, in his office at MIT, and Connie St Louis many times but I'm late to this edition of Today. I agree with Geoff that it's frustrating that the discussion goes off course so quickly.

[kellydown]

Driving to work this morning (I don't normally but the buses are on holiday schedule), I caught the BBC4 news at 8 with an extended interview with a Greenpeace guy who'd got released from Russia.

An interesting minor report I thought, idealistic young Brits in Russian prison, but it went on ... and on ....and on...

They kept giving him another opportunity to repeat his agenda which boiled down to his idea that by motoring into Arctic waters and interfering with a drilling rig he was "saving humanity". (Which is a nice unscripted change of tack from saving "the planet" from humanity I suppose).

This unusual latitude was given this guy despite his general inanity (perhaps understandable in the circumstances), which was only mildly queried by the BBC interviewer when he described his experience as like a WW2 concentration camp. Then he backtracked to say it had the "aesthetic" of a concentration camp. When asked if he would do it again, he said at first he didn't think Greenpeace were planning to go back, then was given more time and another chance to put his views, and said of course, what was 15 years in jail compared to "saving humanity"?

Maybe it was a slow point in the traffic and I was paying more attention, but this seemed to go on longer than any other news item

[Entropic man]

Martin A

Use a portable infrared spectrometer.
The radiation from H2O is from a number of frequencies and is smeared across a lot of the IR spectrum.
The emission from CO2 is mostly around 15micrometres. The DWIR in this band matches the reduction in OLR seen at the same frequency in satellite observations.

[It doesn't add up...]

Is it a coincidence that Lysenko was a geneticist?

[hunter]

The troll is now doing a Capt. Queeg, and just clacking away and iterating its bs.
WUWT had a really nice Christmas post up, and some soul mates of the current troll here posted some vacuous rewrites of astro physics. A couple of them passed the Touring test, like the troll here.
Then some good willed posters attempted to engage and demonstrate why the trolls were incorrect.
And the thread was promptly destroyed by a fulminating infection of Lewandowsky grade sock puppets.
Ignore the lying deceptive troll here.
There is no engaging or persuasion with it.
I do find it fascinating that the pernicious roots of eugenics, the biology equivalent of AGW, still has active legacy organizations in the UK like the US. And that leaders in that legacy are so attracted to social dysfunction of AGW and use the same arguments to defend now as were deployed during the eugenics movement's 'golden age'.

[Cheshirered]

Just listened to the discussion. It's yet another diversion side show - anything rather than discuss the almost total failure of their faith.

Models / predictions - fail.
Sensitivity - fail.
Hot spot - fail.
Vanishing global sea ice - fail.
Runaway warming - fail.
Amplification / feedbacks - fail.
'Renewable' energy - fail.
The pause - fail.

At present it's damn near impossible to find evidence that supports any sort of *dangerous* shift in climate. Even the polar bears are doing ok, goddammit. If humans are contributing to any changes it's looking more and more likely that such change is at worst negligible, hidden in the natural noise and thus not even an issue never mind 'catastrophic'. That renders almost all 'low-carbon' activities a complete waste of time and money.

This failure - and what else should it be called? - is causing them acute, severe embarrassment. It will only get worse for them. After untold billions squandered and no warming or catastrophe for years, alarmists, activists, politicians, scientists, media and social commentators the world over are staring down both barrels of the largest collective global humiliation in history. Do they not like that.

To distract, they discuss anything but the observed science.

[Entropic man]

I once proposed a Classification system for climate change bloggers.

Alarmists : Those expecting the imminent end of human civilisation, beyond any prediction by scientists.

Warmists : Those expecting AGW induced climate change at the upper end of the predicted range.

Acceptors : Those expecting AGW induced clima byte change around the mid-range IPCC forecast.

Lukewarmers : Those expecting AGW induced climate change around the minimum IPCC forecast.

Sceptics : Those who accept the scientific evidence that climate is changing, but ascribe it to natural variation rather than human activity.

Deniers : Those who do not accept the scientific evidence, believing that no change is happening.

[Mydogsgotnonose]

I would suggest that we compress the classification into:

Fools,

Lukewarmers,

Sceptics.

There are no deniers.

[Entropic man]

Mydogsgotnonose

Your prejudice is showing.

[matthu]

EM: (This is a serious question)

In your useful categorisation, could you perhaps try to differentiate for me between natural variation and no change? Is it simply a question of perspective?

I mean, if the world were to enter a little ice age for up to 100 years (as some physicists are suggesting may be possible) would that be regarded as climate change or natural variation (because we have been there before)?

And would this be consistent with global warming?

If temperatures were to be raised by 1.5 deg C for 100 years, and then fall back, would that be regarded as climate change or natural variation?

And would that be consistent with global warming?

And when would either amount to "no change" from what we have all experienced before or come to expect?

[geronimo]

matthu, please accept my apologies for being rude and joining your discourse with EM, but surely you must know that every state of the climate is consistent with global warming.

[Chandra]

Tim Berners-Lee, really? Richard Drake, I'm thrilled to be talking with someone who is only one step from greatness! You must be so proud! What was it like, go on, tell us.

Mydog, when you say, the "thermalisation of GHG-absorbed IR cannot occur in the gas phase so it must be at heterogeneities with condensed matter", it sounds so fascinating. If I heard it from anyone else, I'd think they were barking, but from you ...., well let's just say I'm looking forward to reading all about it!

[Entropic man]

Matthu

Terminology bedevils this debate.

Climate is average weather, seasonal changes averaged over a long period. Thirty years is sometimes used as the averaging period

Natural variation is clear enough. These are variations in climate on various timescales due to non-human factors. Volcanoes, solar cycles, ice age cycles, impactors; all these would fit. The leading hypothesis for the LIttle Ice age is a reduction in energy from the Sun.

Climate change is used ambiguously. The most general definition would be any long term change in climate from any cause. Ice Ages (little or large) would be climate change.
In debate nowadays, "climate change" tens to be used as shorthand for anthropogenic climate change. This is the changes ascribed mainly to our industrial CO2 production and its climatic effects.

"No change" in the context of the climate change debate, I would describe as a constant climate with no significant change in 30 year temperature or other averages over our 130 year period of direct measurements.

There is some overlap. Natural variation over short timescales is weather. Over longer period, decades to millennia, it shows as a change in climate.

In the climate change debate, once you filter out the lunatic fringe, the key difference between acceptors, lukewarmers and sceptics is the proportion of the observed change ascribed to natural and anthropogenic factors. This then affects their respective expectations for the future.

[matthu]

geronimo - "every state of the climate is consistent with global warming"

Yes, that is a fairly widely held viewpoint here on BH. But I am simply inviting EM to clarify whether he personally subscribes to that view as well, or whether he can describe for us what state of the climate would be inconsistent with global warming.

Is he prepared to deny that there is absolutely no state of the climate (within the forseeable future) that would be inconsistent with global warming?

And if no weather is inconsistent with global warming, how can we possibly detect change?

[Alan Kennedy]

I am very late to all this - Christmas got in the way.

Discussion of presentational balance is surely a bit of a red herring because both Nurse and Jones, in different domains, are biological scientists. That is, one assumes their knowledge of atmospheric physics must be very limited - and derive from an amateur interest, if that. Why would you bother with balance when a case has to be made by someone with only a part-time interest in the matter and patently no professional expertise or standing? The question for the BBC is why they can't find a real climate scientist (even an approximation to one) to present their AGW case with some authority.

[matthu]

My previous message was posted without seeing EM's earlier reply.

But I think what he was saying was that if we were to enter a little ice age now, that would be climate change. But presumably not anthropogenic and therefore not wholly consistent with gobal warming nor anticipated by the models.

No change he equates with no significant variation, without saying what level we should measure the variation from. Since temperatures have always varied, we are back to saying that there is no climate change unless there has been significant temperature variation from what one might normally expect - which many scientists would agree there hasn't been (unless you assume a stationary temperature) so I do not see the difference now between natural variation and no change.

[Entropic man]

Matthu

20,000 years ago the climate was 5C cooler with glaciers down to London.
5000 years ago it was as warm as today.
There was then a gradual decline to 1C cooler than the present, which included the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
From the late 1800s the temperature has warmed to match those 5000 years ago.

"No change" is not a correct description. Climate change has definitely happened. Most of the climate scientists regard the cooling trend over the last 2000 years as due to natural variation induced by changes in Earth's orbit. The warming trend over the last century is ascribed to mainly human activity, with some lesser natural variation.

[SJF]

Did/does Richard Lindzen really dissent from the consensus that smoking causes lung cancer? Or did he just say that experiments designed to detect any effects of passive smoking should be rigorous and careful? In other words, is Chandra's ad hominem attack true?

[Entropic man]

Matthu

If humanity did not exist, the " natural" temperature would be expected to be around 13.6C. The measured current average is around 14.6C.

For convenience recent trends tend to be compared with the thirty years post WW2, for which the average was 14.0C