One can criticise either, but in the absence of any published papers giving a different figure,

Absense of other research does not valididate rubbish research.

By the way, I posted a link to some peer reviewed research on warming not being too bad and you went off on one of your days off saying you would look at it and post back. You never did, it was in the post you called me discursive, which I take as a compliment by the way.

Discursive: Proceeding to a conclusion through reason rather than intuition.

BOFA; Zed; All

Sorry to dredge up Anderegg 2010 again, but this is priceless.

Roger Pielke Jnr wrote about the paper on his blog here:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-black-list.html

And in comments we find this (emphasis mine):

Eric said... 26

Wow. Roger, you know I disagree with you on many things, but not on this.
What the heck where they thinking? Even if the analysis had some validity -- and from a first glance, I'm definitely not convinced it does -- it's not helpful, to put it mildly. I'm totally appalled.

Tue Jun 22, 07:36:00 AM MDT

Roger Pielke, Jr. said... 27

-26-Eric

Thank for the comment, but since we get many "Erics" around here, it'd be useful to know which one you are ;-)

Tue Jun 22, 07:41:00 AM MDT

Eric said... 29

Roger: Sorry for being ambiguous:

Eric Steig.

Tue Jun 22, 07:45:00 AM MDT

Ouch.

This is kind of old news, but it was new to me: a video from 2008 on teaching teachers how to teach climate change. More on it here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/02/classroom-climate-conditioning-at-work.html

Zed

Not still on about the Anderegg paper are you? The one even Spencer Weart said should never have been published?

It's the old '9 out of 10 cats' argument, and really, it's worthless.

Sod what 'the scientists' believe - stick to quantitative analysis of quantitative data. This paper is pseudo science that tries to render qualitative assumptions into quantitative form.

It's on a level with oh, IPAT and junk like that. Find another argument. Bored with hearing this from you and it's weak, too.

I guess the PM item on Australian Climate change is going to get a rocket from Prof Beddington then, and no doubt an additional kick from the Equalities Commission?

Ross H

Anderegg 2010. Better than Doran 2009 in my opinion. One can criticise either, but in the absence of any published papers giving a different figure, it's the one any person who values methodical research should go with.

BBC PM prog on Radio 4 has just covered Australian warmists blaming extreme weather on global warming (cyclone, floods, bush fires, etc) with dire warnings about worse to come.

I hope everyone is complaining to the BBC about the recent onslaught of alarmist propaganda.

BBC PM prog on Radio 4 has just covered Australian warmists blaming extreme weather on global warming (cyclone, floods, bush fires, etc) with dire warnings about worse to come.

I hope everyone is complaining to the BBC about the recent onslaught of alarmist propaganda.

Exclusive: Beddington goes to war against bad science
Selective use of science should be on a par with racism or homophobia

http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1032320

Wonder who he is refering to? !!!

"In closing remarks to an annual conference in London of around 300 scientific civil servants on 3 February, Beddington said that selective use of science ought to be treated in the same way as racism and homophobia"

oh dear!!!

Guardian: Chris Huhne steps up fight for tougher EU emissions targets
UK climate change secretary's plan to raise targets to a 30% cut by 2020 has won support from a wide coalition of businesses

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/14/chris-huhne-eu-emissions-targets