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

Mike Jackson Jul 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Yes yes.

No, not off your rocker. Exasperated, maybe. And IMHO right to be cynical.

And of course this old bureaucrat knows that the environmentalists would want the tremulous uncertainty of the () sentence replaced by an unmistakable assertion, but is not at all persuaded.

The thought was put to acknowledge BBD’s explanations that

(1) there is agreement that mankind’s activities influence climate thro’ carbon dioxide etc, and
(2) actions to influence climate will need to be impossibly drastic.

BBD

But, reference the HSI, What about the statisitics the papaleoclimatologists seem to have to do?

We do know that the MWA was not caused by CO2.
We do know that the recent warming was caused by CO2.
There seem to be a large number of holes in that logic or am I missing something important?

There are no holes in this logic. Or why not point to them?

Mike

Right!
So we don't know how much of the recent warming is due to rebound from the Little Ice Age.

No. What you need to do is find some (any) evidence that this supposed 'rebound' from the LIA actually persisted significantly into the C20th. I say it did not. Where's the body of work that identifies this 'rebound' and quantifies its duration?

Failing that, you must accept that the majority of the warming in the C20th and to date has nothing to do with this 'rebound'.

And I ask again - how does this 'rebound' cause energy to accumulate in the climate system? You need a mechanism, or it's all just talk.

(Of course, this old bureaucrat appreciates that only drastic modification of nett carbon dioxide emissions, and maybe also of land use, seem to offer means by which mankind might be able to influence climate trends.)

And would you believe it, uncle, that just happens to be what all those environmental activists that leech off the public purse and tear at our heartstrings with their lyin' pictures of polar bears would like us to do.
Back to the dark ages, guys. No more fossil fuels or any of the wonderful oil/coal/gas-based inventions of the last 200 years. Back to subsistence agriculture and in-breeding with the next-door village. And dying at 45.
And in case you think I'm off my rocker, I spent 20 years fighting against a group of eco-idiots who would have agreed with every word of that last paragraph and I can call the witnesses to prove it. (One of them even has an entry on the blogroll to your right but it's not up to me to name names.)
All the more reason to be not just sceptical but downright cynical.
Not that I'm suggesting conspiracy or anything like that, just that there is a remarkable coincidence at work here and the more the warmists bash on about CO2 and throw the mother of all conniption fits when anyone dare even hint that things might not be "worse than we thought" the more I wonder what is really going on.
I love the quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:

The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.

If you prefer the McIntyre version (paraphrased): "Keep your eye on that thimble at all times!"

Stll, chin up, there is some good news - the grotesque subsidy scheme runs out at midnight tonight for solar powered schemes with a "capacity" of more than 50kW.

Subsidy farmers have been running around like blue rear ended flies the last few days trying to get their windfalls on-line before the axe falls.

Would that the axe would also fall, not just on subsidies, but on (fill in your choice of target here).

Must have a small celebration, maybe a tin of cold Guinness and a few crisps as the sun sails over 0 degrees.

Can't afford a treble anything these days.

The Sunday Times, 31 July 2011:

"Russia eyes British power plants"

Anybody surprised that Hendry “welcomes new entrants to the British energy industry” - allegedly?

Could it turn out better for the peasants in the UK vis a vis Spain's entry into the "British energy industry"?

Trebles all round.

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

BBD Jul 30, 2011 at 7.44 PM

I, too, find I have to revisit.

My reading of your original recommendation to Science of Doom does not make clear if carbon dioxide was the only significant focus of concern, or if there might be factors that could lead to extremes of climate (ice ages etc or the reverse).

Now I think about it, the 281 pages described the influence of carbon dioxide, and maybe a restricted set of other factors, on climate. Climate science would be an altogether wider subject. Correct?

Accordingly, the active bureaucrat will want to know whether the arguments about all the positive and negative feedbacks, forceings, etc, not just those related to carbon dioxide, are wide open, or if they lean towards complacency or alarm?

(Of course, this old bureaucrat appreciates that only drastic modification of nett carbon dioxide emissions, and maybe also of land use, seem to offer means by which mankind might be able to influence climate trends.)

Thank you.

Right!
So we don't know how much of the recent warming is due to rebound from the Little Ice Age.
We do know that the MWA was not caused by CO2.
We do know that the recent warming was caused by CO2.
There seem to be a large number of holes in that logic or am I missing something important? We're still unsure whether the last warming cycle (1910-40) peaked higher or lower than the present one since the difference is certainly no greater than the noise and the "adjustments" to the figures and the siting and number of stations (not to mention some fairly cavalier figures for UHI) leave some wriggle room. On that basis combined with the hypothesis that there will be negative rather than positive feedback we can only "believe" that CO2 is the cause and then only by dismissing the factors I have just mentioned.
The question is: what is the evidence for dismissing those factors?

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

BBD Jul 30, 2011 at 7.44 PM Thank you.

To explain, I found those of the 281 pages I examined admirably clear, and the mathematics capable of comprehension. It was the shear volume that daunted.

Thank you again for the clarification on how question (1) should be analyzed. My question was, however, an attempt to discover the extent to which the active bureaucrat should doubt the slogan ‘the science is settled’? How open, therefore, is the question of the balance of positive and negative feedbacks? If the answer is not totally, then which way does it lean (and perhaps, how far)?

Re paleoclimatologists. I did not think of the HSI when I wrote my question. But how do you set about a career in paleoclimatology? Surely, the contents of the 281 pages do not constitute any sort of basis for any sort of work in the field.

I suppose there might be enough activity in tree rings or ice cores to keep a scientist continuously occupied, and someone educated as a botanist, (or forester or whatever) might make a smooth move into a career in tree rings without having to learn the background on the hoof. Similarly some sort of chemist or physicist for the ice cores. But what about all the other approaches (sediments, boreholes, stalgmites etc)? Is there enough paleoclimatological work using one or other of these indicators going on to keep someone in employment? Or is it a case of specialists in these fields occasionally dipping their toes into paleoclimatological waters? Or worse, is it just any old physicist/chemist having a go at paleoclimatology using this or that?

And worse still, is amateurism the norm in paleoclimatology? For example, the UEA site is totally coy about the educational background of CRU staff. (I expect this is routine for academia?) So what basic and masters degree education does Briffa, who I guess is probably highly regarded in the tree-ring community, have? Did he do botany or forestry or something similar? Or did he learn his stuff on the hoof? How typical is he?

AJC: Clip from the news story you note above:

In a clear embarrassment to the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and his Coalition - who have vehemently opposed any price on carbon - Mr Cameron described the federal Labor government's move on climate change as "bold" and "ambitious".

We do not embarrass that easily in the colony.