If they were serious thinkers they would argue the facts, not attack the witness. This is a defense of last resort.

The likes of the IPCC and CCSP reports, which I have read, represent the views of the lead authors who wrote them – such as Trenberth, Solomon, Santer, Karl etc.

Climate models are useful diagnostic tools, but they are not crystal balls that can see into the future. Climate change remains poorly understood, so any attribution is based on assumptions, limited current knowledge, and the demonisation of CO2 for a political rather than a scientific agenda.

“You’re the one in ‘denial’ – denying natural climate variability, which has yet to be exceeded despite man-made CO2. Live in the real world, not in a computer model.”

OK, good, I see that you agree that the CO2 increase is “man-made”. Also good that you see the importance of placing the observed climate changes in the context of natural variation. So could you then explain to me how scientists should go about quantifying, and attributing to physical causes, the natural climate variability, given the importance of that task? In particular, what are the strengths of the “real world” approach (presumably you mean an observational data approach) you advocate, over a “computer model”?
Thanks!

Yes Paul, good idea, and I did that. But I didn’t find much, so maybe you can help me out. Please point out to me the proper link that addresses how many climate scientists YOU have talked to, who they were, about what topics, etc. Please also point out to me the links that describe exactly which scientific society or governmental or inter-governmental syntheses YOU have read and what YOUR issues are with those. And also any links that demonstrate YOUR knowledge of climate science and climate change. Also, more detail, please on the issues of climate model problems and extracting signal from noise–or in general exactly how the methods used are wrong. But to your credit, several of those links DO have a number of posts decrying socialism, leftists, environmentalists, “alarmists”, show disdain for Al Gore and Jim Hansen and Mike Mann and others, so I guess they are helpful in validating your claims.

By the way, just as an aside, I don’t see RealClimate, Open Mind, Rabbett Run, or a number of other blogs listed over there with the others. I guess maybe you weren’t aware of them eh, because I know you want to “bridge the gap between reality and “official” science. Or are those scientists not “official” in your book?

You really don’t HAVE your own answers to my questions do you? Why is that I wonder.

1. How many climate scientists have you conversed with either directly or via email? Who are they, and with what organizations are they affiliated? What topics did you discuss?

2. How much of the AR4, the NAS reports, the AAAS reports, the Royal Academy reports, the Stern report, or any other large, synthetic synopses of the topic have you actually read? Please be specific, otherwise there is no way to understand which parts you disagree with.

3. Relative to the statement “Reports represent the views of the few lead authors that write them”, please tell me how many lead and contributing authors, and reviewers, were involved in reviewing the 4 final products of the AR4. (It’s OK if you don’t know, I’ll provide the answer, and the place where you can check it if you don’t believe me).

4. You state: “There is no convincing evidence that GHGs are responsible for warming the currently non-warming planet. There is plenty of evidence that warming is driven by natural variability of internal climate factors and external solar factors poorly understood by the IPCC”. This statement is BLATANTLY, PATENTLY, FALSE, as a reading of AR4 or any large number of other sources would show. It is in direct contradiction to many hundreds of research results, going clear back to John Tyndall’s original discoveries in 1859 (no, not 1959, but 1859 when the infrared radiative emissions of gases were discovered). This claim of “no evidence” shows clearly that you do not understand (1) the radiative properties of GHGs and (2) the methods by which signal (cause) is extracted from stochasticity (randomness) in complex systems. And if I’m wrong on that, then please prove me wrong by explaining either or both of them, so I can stand corrected, here in public. Yes, it will be painful, but for the sake of truth, I’m willing to take it.

5. You indicate an intense disdain for (among other things), climate models. Please provide a more detailed explanation of exactly why the computer models are faulty and how they fail to account for natural climate variability.

6. I do not believe, based on your statements here (including, e.g., “Nude Socialists”, hatred for Al Gore and Jim Hansen, etc), that your opposition to AWG is based on anything other than a right wing political viewpoint. I don’t believe you have the background to properly interpret and understand the complexity of the science. Rather, you think that with a 30 year old BS in biology and some dabbling in climate journals, you have the ability to understand an incredibly complex and large scale problem. Again, here’s your chance to prove me wrong with specifics.