Brownedoff

I am not a fanatic, and I ask you to withdraw that accusation please.

Also, if you were going to take back the statement about Pravda, why didn't you delete it before posting it? Actually I'm afraid that reveals your ignorance - if I'd previously worked in the Soviet propaganda machine, do you think I would ever have got through the very extensive security screening that all Met Office employees go through as part of our (until recently) MOD ownership? I very much doubt it.

I'm here to try to have a sensible conversation with people whose views I don't necessarily agree with, because (unlike many) I think there is a discussion to be had. I can assure you that I'm not a communist, green activist or involved in any kind of conspiracies or fanaticism.

Mike Jackson:

Yes you are right, the fact that climate science has allowed extreme interpretations to go unchallenged is a problem, and is down to my colleagues and I to address this. This is why I'm here - I want to properly understand all views. Simply ignoring all sceptics is, as you say, ridiculous - I realise that many sceptics (including our host BH) accept AGW in as far as they think that anthropogenic GHGs have at least *some* influence on climate. If we really believe in our science, why not go out and have it challenged, we might even learn something....

I realised my suggestion to review AR5 might not go down very well. However I would like to think that there may be some useful contributions to make, as there clearly were errors in AR4 - obviously the Himalayan Glaciers one, plus others. There was clearly not enough scrutiny, and this is recognised. At least if people make comments and they are ignored, but they then turn out to be right, the IPCC authors can't claim nobody pointed it out - and critics are in a much stronger position afterwards, having tried to engage but been rebutted. I could really have done with Roger Pielke Snr's support in AR4 when I was trying to get more discussion of land use and UHI effects, but unfortunately he'd given up.

Jul 24, 2011 at 6:57 PM | Richard Betts

I see that you have diverted the question [snip]

Please do not presume anything, even with a colon, a dash and a close bracket.

I am not surprised that you think it is OK, particularly as you were on the AR4 team, consequently it is inconceivable that you would NOT sign on to the 2099 Statement as having "the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming".

That is not just an opinion, it is a strongly-held view.

Where did I say I am challenging opinions or seeking to review the fruits of your strongly-held views?

Where did I mention the word catastrophic or impacts?

You endorsed the statement:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is "very likely" due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

In the same way that you have difficulty with "must" and "should" you also seem to have difficulty with "very likely" and "uncertain".

[Snip. Please refrain from this sort of comment and moderate your language. Richard is being polite, please be so as well].

From the Met Office web page launching the 2009 Statement, John and Julia said:

"The Met Office has co-ordinated this united statement ........ This tremendous response affirms our confidence in the science, and reinforces the immediacy of the challenge and the critical nature of the discussions at Copenhagen."

Not much uncertainty there.

Whilst you are here, can you confirm that the Bill Collins who signed the 2009 Statement under the heading Met Office, is the William Collins who is a LA for Chapter 8 in AR5 WG1 and also, who is the William Collins (nominated by the US government) who is a LA for Chapter 9?

In addition, can you confirm that the Peter Thorne (nominated by the US government), who is a LA for Chapter 2 in AR5 WG1, is the same Peter Thorne who signed the 2009 Statement under the heading Met Office?

You say:

"You will also note that the 2009 statement only refers to evidence for warming ...".

Oh, yeah? The 2009 statement refers to AR4 and gives a quote "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal".

Again you have a problem with words, in your world apparently "evidence for warming" is the same as "warming is unequivocal".

A few days ago you told us that you are now under the wing of BIS rather than MoD. What do you think about having SJB as a scientific mentor and are you going to go onto the SJB blog to help him out with replies to the comments?

I suppose that the MoD will have some spare cash now that they are not supporting your super computer - they will probably now buy 100,000 Faberge docking stations for their tweeting devices.

You are lucky to have got out from the MoD before the next tipping point when there are more MoD pen-pushers than warriors.

That you can not see a problem with appointing people with strongly-held views, may I draw to your attention document http://tinyurl.com/66xzpzl and in particular, page 3.

Richard
I will take your point about "alarmist" and "eco-fascist", but both are terms which I have chosen to use where, in my view, the shoe fits.
I have very little time for those who take the science and exaggerate it. I have yet to see a shred of decent evidence that sea levels or even temperatures are going to reach a point in the foreseeable future or indeed ever where they will reach "tipping points" which will effectively make human life on the earth impossible. Those who see it as their duty to tell me such alarmist stories I will continue to call alarmists because that is what they are.
Similarly I need a term for those who wish to wind the clock back to some pre-industrial golden age by banning the use of oil, coal, and most other natural resources which we are supposed to "save" so that our "grandchildren" will be able to make use of them. ("Responsibly", of course, like in the drinks commercials!). They will condemn us to life without all the things that have given us the longevity, health and general well-being which we have today. I will continue to call them "eco-fascists" because that is, essentially, what they are. If you really object, I will suggest "enviro-mentalists", "eco-loons" or simply "nutters".
Our problem (or perhaps more immediately your problem) is that the "eco-fascists" (which includes most of the spokespersons for most of the greeny groups) and the "alarmists" (Gore and Hansen well to the fore) have found willing allies in each other and in the high-profile climate researchers (Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Briffa, Overpeck, et al) and their "useful idiots" (Monbiot, Romm, Oreskes -- and we can probably add in Nurse and Jones - et al) with the result that anyone who disputes the orthodoxy is a heretic (shorthand for all the other things we are actually called),
not deserving of any consideration;
not to be engaged in polite (or indeed any) conversation or given explanations (still less data so we can see the evidence for ourselves;
not to be given any credibility regardless of the views that are being put forward (McIntyre, the Pielkes Svensmark, et al -- none of whom, incidentally, dispute the existence of global warming or the likelihood that mankind has some influence therein or the possibility that CO2 might also be implicated to an extent).
And now we have an expert on fruit flies telling the BBC (which is supposed to provide balanced coverage of the important things that happen in the world) that sceptics should get less air time than the none they already have.
Forgive me for being a little unsympathetic.
Also, when you suggest we offer our services as reviewers, for engaging in a bout of hysterical laughter. Have you actually read the way reviewers' comments were treated in AR4? Why would anyone with even the slightest doubt about any of the conclusions put themselves through that experience?

This is excellant, sorry about the length but it';s worth it. A post over on Anthonys site by Andic:

The Green Thing

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she
should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren’t good
for the environment.

The woman apologized to him and explained, “We didn’t have the green
thing back in my day.”
The clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did
not care enough to save our environment.”

She was right — our generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to
the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and
sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and
over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every
store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t
climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two
blocks.

But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the
throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling
machine burning up 220 volts — wind and solar power really did dry
the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or
sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we
didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every
room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief
(remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have
electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded
up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut
the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised
by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on
treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she’s right; we didn’t have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup
or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.
We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we
replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the
whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn’t have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their
bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour
taxi service.
We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets
to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget
to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in
order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old
folks were just because we didn’t have the green thing back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a
lesson in conservation from a smart-ass young person.

The Green Thing

Justin

Ah, OK, sorry to have a sense of humour failure!

Don't worry, I expect others here found it pretty funny.

I'll get my coat....

Richard

Their statement was worded like a pile of arrogant tosh. And yes, I know they weren't talking about models, and mentioned nothing of capitalism.
My humour has fallen on deaf ears.

Justin

The Dec 10 2009 statement wasn't about models, it was about the CRU temperature observations which had come under fire in the wake of the release of the UEA emails.

And which of those signatories said anything about capitalism or any other political system? I think you are confusing scientists defending a particular aspect of the science with activists defending a political cause. These are not the same thing.

Brownedoff - See http://tinyurl.com/3m68qdb
Sorry, couldn't resist a quick re-edit:
We (the consensus manufacturing ) members of the UK science community, are casting a vote of confidence in the models that are now evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to capitalism. The models and the projections are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous simulation, by a few modellers across the world who adhere to the highest levels of fortran. That research has been been subjected to pal review and publication, but not providing traceability, code or methodology of the evidence and support for the post normal scientific method.

The science of climate change draws on a political narrative from an increasing number of NGO's, many of which are disguised here. As professional scientists, from student activists to senior professors and communications experts, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the fact that we can't yet find any other explanation".

@Messenger

Unfortunately you're right, you do get called those names - but hopefully not by most of the people on the list posted by Brownedoff. Climate scientists tend to use the term "sceptics" which I understand to be more acceptable (correct me if I'm wrong), and even laudible - scientists themselves should of course be sceptical in the more general sense of the term.

In my experience, the more derogatory and inflammatory terms such as "denier" tend to be used more by activists than by working scientists (although of course there are a few who are both). For example, the first time I heard a sceptic called a "flat earther" it was by someone from an environmental NGO - I didn't understand what they meant at first, it was such a strange thing to say! I don't think such name-calling is helpful, and indeed possibly reveals an insecurity from the name-caller - they are probably not confident enough in their ability to present a rational argument, so resort to other tactics instead.

The same goes for name-calling from the "other side" by the way, such as the indiscriminate use of "alarmist" and, worse, things like "eco-fascist" - however my impression is that many sceptics are as embarrassed by such things as I am by the use of "denier" etc.

Maybe we can all agree to discourage fundamentalism in our respective "camps", then we can get on with a more sensible conversation.... :-)

@Richard Betts

The trouble is, Richard, if we challenge opinions we rapidly become called deniers, right wing lunatics, flat earthers, selfish people who don't want to change their way of life and never think of their grandchildren and probably ignoramuses and liars into the bargain. I find it rather depressing.