No - use Occam's Carbuncle - "The cruellest explanation is usually the best". The cruellest explanation being the one that can't be ameliorated by socialist pyramid schemes.

Good post Kate. You're right on the money.

Agreed. Just look at the earth, all its life forms and the universe. Now think about the law of cause and effect. Now ask yourself, "Did it all just happened without a cause?" What is the "simplest" explanation?

What are you getting at Jack? The true form of Occam's razor is "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Simplest doesn't necessarily mean "emotionally or intellectually the most comforting to accept". I happen to believe in God, but I don't think Occam's razor leads one there.

OC - If we go down this road too far, then we know nothing, literally. GTG

I've always enjoyed Sagan's for-public-consumption work. Cosmos was a great series and it holds up well, for the most part, even today. There are segments, though, where he veers towards the civilization hating left -- the references in Cosmos to climate change and environmental issues are cringe-inducing to me today.

--

Jack: in answer to your question "What is the "simplest" explanation?"

Answer: Geometry

Re Occam's razor and the existence of lif forms. As my six-year old observed, it does not explain anything to say God created the universe because then you just have to explain God. It's like saying we sleep because there is dormitive power. It just does not add anything to our understanding of a phenomenon to posit an agency. That is not an argument against the existence of God, only that has not explanatory power in science.

Ask: is the Hypothesis testable and falsifiable. Hypothesis that are not testable are not worth much. Could you duplicate accurately, at least theoretically, the hypothesis?

This is the point I bring up with AGW alarmists when they insist on drawing parallels between myself and those who deny that 'smoking causes cancer'

A correlation between smoking and cancer can be tested/duplicated by a proper experiment using a control group.

AGW cannot.

"then we know nothing"

The road leads where it leads. One potential, speculative result should never preclude the inquiry.

Lore Weaver: It's not Kate posting, she's in China.

Al Gore's Razor: All other people being imbiciles, the most profitable narrative is best.

KS, agree with your point that random control trials cannot be run. But there are other ways to falsify the global warming hypotheses. The issue has been the systematic efforts to thwart and deride any attempts at falsification.

Here's an interesting mental exercise:

Sagan was undoubtedly a Leftard.

Where would he fall on this debate.

I have no doubt he would be standing right beside Dr. FruitFascistfly and Herman Goering, er, Al Gore on AGW.

Doug

Sagan was an intellect, thusly tended to lean to being apolitical. Having said that I always saw him as a questioning individual, Bore and Fruitfly are not the questioning types.

and

In the last couple of years I'v read two articles that suggested that up to 50% of experiments/studies were flawed because those conducting them set out to prove a given bias rather than explore NEW ground.

Sagan was one of the worst demonstrated blow where the wind may take him sycophants the world had known until David Mengale Susuki showed up.I have an article from Scientific American from the early 80s where "billion and billions" crys about global cooling.

he also pines about other civilizations on other planets, wondering about their art , their culture , their dance, their cable tv-Im not making this up.. frig - given the variables --they are lucky they have legs or eyes in a galaxy far , far away.

tell us what you really think Cal?

Carl Sagan was a brilliant astrophysicist... but he was an astrophysicist. I'm not sure that qualifies him as an authority on global warming. Plus, Carl Sagan died more than a decade ago. Climate change science has come a long way since his time. I'm not sure I would put any more credence in his words on the topic than I would in Cjunk's. Would it be significant if Einstein had said that he didn't believe in global warming?

Part of the scientific method is transparency. This is why scientific papers are written in a very dry, predictable format, typically: abstract, hypothesis/aims; methods; results, discussion, conclusions. Methodology is frequently flawed because it is often very difficult to design methodologically pristine experiments or observations of imperfectly understood phenomena. Sometimes pure logistical constraints stymie the study. However, the fact that the methods must be described in a scientific paper is itself part of the scientific process. Those critiquing the study presumably have the opportunity to improve future studies in order to better eliminate confounders. The important part is that the flaws in the study be out there for all to see, thereby allowing readers to gauge the value of the data presented and the validity of the results. In scientific research there are rarely cut and dried answers arising from a single study. AGW apocalyptics fatuously claim "overwhelming evidence", "universal agreement" and other risibly absurd levels of certainty for barely understood phenomena. By doing so they simply discredit themselves in the eyes of serious scientists.
For the cheerleaders of AGW who seem to believe that human CO2 production is leading to an apocalypse, why have we not seen a simple proposition or statement of the theory i.e. Hypothesis: a continuation of unrestrained human CO2 production will increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations by ____ resulting in a rise of mean global temperature as measured at the following stations: _______ to a temperature exceeding ____ within five years. Well, what are we waiting for? Or has the theory already blow up because despite rises in the atmospheric CO2 the mean global temperature (your baby, not mine) has plateaued or fallen? Put up or shut up.

A good one DrD!

God, Forain are you really that thick. Sagan was talking about the integrity of scientific research and the common flaws associated with improper research. The poster was using Sagan's approach v.v. AGW "research."

Common sense is not the purview of zealots. Great post Kate!

[quote] Hypothesis: a continuation of unrestrained human CO2 production will increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations by ____ resulting in a rise of mean global temperature as measured at the following stations: _______ to a temperature exceeding ____ within five years. Well, what are we waiting for? Or has the theory already blow up because despite rises in the atmospheric CO2 the mean global temperature (your baby, not mine) has plateaued or fallen? Put up or shut up.[/quote]

DrD,
You are absolutely right... The numbers would prove that "SOME" form of science was indeed involved in the prediction of such results.

The normal research path has been reversed. The client/problem normally dictates the required Results & Science "must" provide the solution.

The problem, in providing numbers, is for Gore & his Investors in the Carbon Trading Scam. They want to just measure the "Physical" input side... X number of Coal cars = X number of Co2 without any linkage to Global warming. Wall street likes sure things & politicians need to be re-elected!

The article linked to in the first line is interesting since it completely ignores the fundamental link between CO2 and AGW. As I have said before (apologies to regular readers for repeating myself) there are three fundamentals you can rely on.

1) We are responsible for all the recent CO2 increase.

2) Adding CO2 will cause more IR radiation to strike the surface.

3) Adding IR to an object will either warm it or cause it to cool less quickly (unless you are ol hoss and don't believe in quantum mechanics).

DrD: Well, I don't like your time limit since it is not the definition of climate, but the rest is done by the IPCC. In regards to the link between CO2 and temperature, Tamino has an interesting graphic.

Regards,
John

Someday I'd Like to by Dr. D a beer.... just because !

Interesting. john cross insists agw is directly tied to increasing CO2. Yet I just read an article about how temperatures were much higher in the past, as much as 12 C above current average, with Lower CO2. And elsewhere, how CO2 levels were 20 times what they are now, in the middle of an ice age.

I'm beginning to understand how huggrifter the lying bastard gets so confused.

Global warming is abating nicely here in Southern Montana. It snowed today. http://weather.yahoo.com/forecast/USMT0001_f.html

John Cross:

Your #1: Not a fact ... a theory.

Your #2: So what ... it's exact effect on planetary temp. has not been determined, quantum is not known and only theoretical.

Your #3: Yes John, but again the degree to which this effects planetary temp. is not known.

Furthermore, the article addresses quantum ... the degree of effect processes have. I'm surprised you missed that.

John,
"The article linked to in the first line is interesting since it completely ignores the fundamental link between CO2 and AGW. "

That's because there is NO fundamental link between the two. There is a fundamental link between increased CO2 and increased IR energy trapping.

As the world is much more complex with clouds, convection, oceans, solar fluctuations, blah blah blah, one needs to ignore fluid dynamics, chaos theory, and other scientific disciplines not to mention quantization error and unverified computer algorithms to reach such a simplistic assumption that the link is "fundamental".

If you are relying on models, then I want verifiable and repeatable experiemental results. Until then, it remains a wobbly theory.

John: Your models and warm-mongers couldn't predict the current and coming cooling. They couldn't predict the Pacific and Atlantic cold phases or detail out what natural mechanisms trigger the phases ... it's all theoretical at this point with only the actual observations being "fact". The NASA seasonal forecasts are still online ... and completely wrong. The cooling came as a surprise ... with not a whiff of specific warning in any AGW literature (generalized statements about variability don't count) and at this moment, they (warm-mongers) can't tell us how long the cooling will last.

I think it's time to get back to Sagan's guide and revisit science basics ... something even you have forgotten about by dragging out the same old refrains while the strenghth of AGW theories weakens right before your eyes. At what point John, does it become religion for you?

Here's your test question: What will it take to change your mind that AGW is a significant climactic force ... what "test" does the logical mind of John Cross demand?

otter: Both your statements are true (as far as we can tell). However in spite of the CO2 levels, all the other factors of climate change are probably not the same (i.e. you are comparing apples to watermelon). For example 500 million years ago there was higher CO2, which was a good thing since the sun was about 5% weaker than it is today.

Regards,
John

Paul: You raised a number of questions / issues. So taking them in order.

In regards to my #1 – I have put forward my argument a number of times as to why this is a fact, not a theory. If you wish to discuss it, please address that.

In regards to #2, I do not understand what you mean by quantum is not known.

Also, where did the article address “quantum”?

In regards to your question “What will it take to change your mind that AGW is a significant climactic force”, there are a number of possible answers.

First, the science that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will enhance the greenhouse effect is so strong that it would take the rewriting of a huge part of our understanding of physics to provide a creditable claim it would not. I think that is unlikely.

However it is possible that there may be some other mechanism that could be brought about by adding CO2 which would cause cooling. So to convince me such a mechanism would need to be proposed. The details would need to be established. And it would need to be backed by observational data.

I could also be convinced by observations alone. For example (baring a major volcano or other known cooling mechanism) if there is a significant period of cooling (and I mean significant in a statistical sense and period in the climate sense) then that alone would be enough to question what we know.

Now, let me ask you the same question. What scientific evidence would it take for you to change your mind on AGW?

Regards,
John

Yes, Carl Sagan was deffinitely a proponent of the AGW theory. However, at the time of his death, so was I. The early theories certainly seemed logical, and the scientific data looked credible. Things have changed a bit since then. Judging by his character, I'd like to think that Mr. Sagan would have revised his opinion - however, there's really no way to tell, and either way his beliefs on AGW in no way impinge on his work as a scientist and a skeptic. He was truly a great man, and I treasure my copies of "Cosmos" and "The Demon Haunted World" despite the points where we may disagree. The world is a smaller place without him.

Global warming has abated here in Southern Montana. It is snowing here.

Agreed, Alex, regardless of the few errors he made (for we are all human, ergo we all make mistakes), Mr. Sagan's demise was indeed a sad loss. I imagine, though, that he would take solace in Blood, Sweat, and Tears assertion that: and when I die, there'll be one child born to carry on, to carry on.

First, the science that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will enhance the greenhouse effect is so strong that it would take the rewriting of a huge part of our understanding of physics to provide a creditable claim it would not. I think that is unlikely.

I think that is highly unlikely that you can prove this pompous claim. I would be amused to watch you try. Please start by quantifying the total amount of energy radiated outward by the earth in the CO2 absorption bands. Assume an incoming energy of 1.367kw/sq.m. Then quantify the absorptivity of this energy by CO2 leading to a determination of how much CO2 it would take to absorb all of the available outgoing radiation.

I sure, that you being a student of "the science" and so convinced of its infallibility, that you can pop these numbers off the top of your head, but please provide references as to how they were determined for the benefit of those of us whom you might consider more "skeptical".

Once you've convinced us that there is available energy for additional CO2 to absorb, then we can work on quantifying the energy to heat mechanisms.

) Adding IR to an object will either warm it or cause it to cool less quickly (unless you are ol hoss and don't believe in quantum mechanics).

Unlike you, I don't "believe" man made theories until they are proven with an actual measurement.

Provide proof through measurement that heat from a cooler object can move to a warmer object. Paper physics doesn't do it for me.

Did I just read John Cross saying that global warming has to do with the sun?

"For example 500 million years ago there was higher CO2, which was a good thing since the sun was about 5% weaker than it is today."

Call Al Gore and Dr. Fruitfly!

What scientific evidence would it take for you to change your mind on AGW?

Any warming that has occured is well within the bounds of normal variation.

The ocean level has not risen any more quickly than is normal.

All global warmng predictions have been wrong.

Although there are those missing penguins leftards seem to think inhabit the arctic.

"Now, let me ask you the same question. What scientific evidence would it take for you to change your mind on AGW?Regards,John"

I have a few thoughts on that. But before one can even get to the science three initial steps must happen:
1. Take the politicians out
2. Take the carbon capitalists(carbon traders, offset companies, oil companies, lobbyists) out.
3. Take the activists out

These groups are making it difficult to separate out the business and political interference from the science. There is a 10 year delay due to natural cooling factors so use this time to return the issue to the scientists.

4.Provide equal funding for proponents and skeptics to prevent grant gold diggers.

5. Start at the bottom - sample collection. For example, there are obvious problem with heat island effect and surface monitor locations. Without good initial samples there is no confidence in the downstream predictions that are based on those numbers.

6.Then just follow the established scintific method:

Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy.

Any hypothesis that cannot be subjected to a test is not considered to be scientific.

These steps are repeated to refine hypotheses and allow for increasingly dependable predictions of future results.

Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes.

This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Another facet shared by the various fields of scientific inquiry is that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results.

There is also an expectation that scientists document all of their data and methodology for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers.

Most scientific journals and grant agencies require a well documented set of data to be archived.

This allows other researchers to conduct statistical measures of the reliability of the results and to verify results by attempting to replicate them. (wiki)

You know stop insisting the science is settled, bullying and alarmism. Let researchers get back to real science and true debate before proposing any political or economic solutions.

John: Your arrogance is creeping through. There are many valid challenges to AGW theory being forwarded by individuals many many times more capable and knowledgeable than you and who are on par with any AGW proponant.

If you go through the Sagan list, you will find that AGW theory has failed on any number of levels.

Why do I say you are arrogant? Because you have not given the scientists questioning AGW one ounce of credit. Surely, after all that's been said, one of them ... somewhere ... may have made a valid point. To deny such .. is arrogance, or ignorance, or just plain religious fervor. Or ... are all the "deniers" bone-heads?

Then there is the fact that you ignore the failures of AGW science, acting like they don't exist. Failures to predict accurately, failures in providing raw data and methodology, failures in transparency, failures in data collection, failures to follow basic experimental rules by manipulating data, failures to openly debate and offer genuine peer review by oponents ... etc. All of this washes off you like water off teflon ...

As to "quantum". The article suggests that AGW has been "quantified" incorrectly, and has a miniscule effect. The AGW models have not been proven.

There is no proof ... none ... that AGW models are correct. That proof will come in what? ... 100 years or more. Warm-mongers have provided no means by which to test their models even over decades because they've built a dodge (climactic variability)... and then, when the models fail, they simply tweak the models. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. Science can be tested ... AGW theory the way it's been set up by "your" camp, provides no valid test.

Therefore, AGW is at this time a failed theory.

One of the commenters in Stephen Wilde's article made a good point.

"The landmass has a smaller effect and the people on it practically none. You only have to use google earth to see how insignificant mankind is. Spin the earth and with eyes closed stop the spin and zoom into the surface, 7 times out of 10 that will be uninhabited water. Of the three times that land surface is encountered it is usually barren desert or mountains. People only have the feeling that we over populate the planet because we all live together and spend our waking experiences mostly in towns and cities. The vast majority of the earth is unspoilt nature. "

Kate, I believe, made this point a few years back while driving to CA(?).

I would hazzard a guess, that most Warming-Alarmists live in cities, jet across the globe, from city to city, without looking out the window - instead, are buried in Gore or Suzuki fiction.

Ostridges

Why do I say you are arrogant? Because you have not given the scientists questioning AGW one ounce of credit. Surely, after all that's been said, one of them ... somewhere ... may have made a valid point. To deny such .. is arrogance, or ignorance, or just plain religious fervor. Or ... are all the "deniers" bone-heads?

Posted by: Paul at May 10, 2008 12:13 PM

But Paul, you didn't answer his question. What you did was attack him personally. That is common when someone doesn't have an answer.

His question was;

Now, let me ask you the same question. What scientific evidence would it take for you to change your mind on AGW?

You folks sure do love a pig pile wot? Doesn't much matter how much fact or truth or for that matter scientific evidence anyone posts, you still deny, avoid, and block the evidence from your minds.

I admire John for his patience and intelligence. I can't say that for the majority who post here. And it's not because I agree with his analysis on Global warming, it's because he has the courage to offer assessments to people whose capacity for critical thinking is extremely limited.

If you wish to refute his assessments of science with the weight of the scientific evidence YOU have produced, or other reputable and qualified scientists have published, then please do so. I for one, would like to read it. I am truly interested and like many, would be happier without the added burden of worrying about carbon footprints. Yet Sir, I am old enough to listen to evidence that supports what I have personally experienced.

No blog references, and no hate mail please. Just facts. And don't try to deflect Paul, I am aware of the Artful Dodger. I read the book.

Hugger

Pd: your question as it is stated would be hard if not impossible to answer. For example it would take a huge amount of CO2 to saturate all the bands. However, as I have pointed out in the past, even if you were to saturate the bands, you would still get increases in downward IR radiation (provided you accept quantum physics). You asked for references, this one is a good one.

I will comment that I am not out to convince your or change anyone mind. I just like to subject my ideas to skeptical review. You should try it! ;-)

ol hoss. As I keep saying, there is no need for anything beyond your own observations. Open the window and look at the ground. Is it acting like a mirror, is it transparent which would allow you to see the other side of the world, or does it absorb. Of course it could do a combination of all three, but if you choose that I would expect you to quantify it.

Lynnh: Your comments may be valid and we could discuss them, but they do not answer my question nor is it necessary to have them answered to answer my question.

So let me ask you, what scientific finding would it take you to convince you of AGW.

Paul: You don’t know how I feel about all skeptics or about their work (for example what do I think about John Christy?). There are some who are producing some good, valid and interesting work. There are some who are not.

As Greg above notes, you did not answer my question. So let me ask it again. What specific science would you accept that would convince you of global warming?

Greg: Thanks ;-)

Regards,
John

ol hoss. As I keep saying...

Repetition doesn't prove you correct. Paper science doesn't prove you correct. Real measurements are what it takes. Got any?

ol hoss: I don't but you do. What do you see when you look at the ground?

Regards,
John

I don't...

Discussion ended due to John being unable to supply proof in the form of measurements that a cooler object can add heat to a warmer object.

The ocean level has not risen any more quickly than is normal.

Posted by: ol hoss at May 10, 2008 10:30 AM

What proof in the form of measurements do you have to substantiate this statement? And what gauge are you using to define normal?

Hugger

Hi John
You know what I see when I look at the ground? I see convection. I see heat being dissipated by a mechanism for which no equation exists to describe it. You're the one making these absurd claims for CO2 trapping the heat; you get us the equations. I saw the pretty little drawing you linked to. It has no legend associated with it so it's meaningless. However, I'll be generous; I'll assume that the red is a temperature graph of the "mean global temperature" -- an absolutely nonsensical concept on which AGW apocalypts are hung up. So tell me, how in 1850, when Speake had yet to discover the source of the Nile, when the arctic and antarctic were largely unexplored, huge chunks of the Amazon basin were unexplored great chunks of central Asia had never seen a thermometer and oceanographic measurements were sparse at best was the "mean global temperature" calculated? Since the data must continue to use the same measurement points to have any validity, which locations were used and continue to be used? Don't tell me any were added, because that would completely invalidate the entire graph. I've given you a template above by which you can outline your hypothesis. Well?
Greg, do you claim that the sea levels are rising due to human CO2 production? Then you get us the observations, measurements and equations. You're the one assigning causality so the burden of proof is upon you. Welcome to the world of science.

Greg: He didn't answer my question honestly, so I feel no obligation in answering his. He used a dodge, especially in the context of the post, which was Carl Sagan's standard for good science. John Cross ignored that entirely, which makes his personal claim, ad nauseum, of sticking to scientific argument a farce. I base my "personal attack" on many thousands of words exchanged between us on this topic.

To answer the question though: When AGW scientists live up to most of the expectations of good science, as expresed by Carl Sagan, I'll bite. So far, they haven't even come close ... in fact, the science is so bad, it smells of fraud.

John: I know what you think by the thousands of words you have written here and on my blog. You give "deniers" no credit whatsoever ... ever. And that, makes you a partisan just like me, despite the sanguine tones. Either that, or you have misrepresented your views.

Furthermore, this post has a specific context, which is the standard set out by Carl Sagan for good science and the fact that AGW has not been quantified in any falsifiable or testable form by the warm-mongering side. That is the topic.

You did not address that but fell back on your old chestnuts which are not even relevant to the post. When I asked you what it'd take for you to change your mind, I expected you to answer in the context of this post, especially Carl Sagan's incredibly realistic guide. I need not spell that out ... otherwise, why do this post at all?

Or, how about this. I'll help you out.

Using the Carl Sagan standard, let's see how the IPCC stacks up:

1. Fail - most peer review has been in-house or by like-minded "peers". The IPCC rules state that all review must be published ... yet they have failed to even do this. Furthermore the foundational and seminal work has not been duplicated (ie: Hanson)

2. Fail - Warm-Mongers not only discourage debate, but persecute or belittle other points of view.

3. Not really relevant

4. Fail - Only one hypothesis is being spun or considered by the IPCC.

5. Fail ... Fail ... triple Fail

6. Fail ... AGW theory has been set up by Warm-mongers so that it can't be tested. It'll take a century to prove or disprove it because "all" climatic changes fall with the "range"; according to the IPCC. We could freeze over ... and they say it's all part of the AGW process.

7. Fail - can't even begin without addressing #6

8. Fail - what about the "sun"? Many AGW models don't even consider it because it is assumed to be a constant.

9. Major Fail ... to the point of suggesting fraud.

... and just for fun, I'll add this ...

Harris's First Law:
Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science.

Could be the world's biggest case of 'rats fleeing a sinking ship' - Al Gore hauled into court on multi-million dollar fraud charges.

I'm still waiting for Hoss to answer fellas. I'll get back to you tomorrow if he doesn't. Just one thought for now. DrD, there is no specific burden of proof on me. I know what I see, and have posted some web based material on the subject. No one refuted it. Therefore, I will wait for you fellas to show me the beef.

Hugger

Paul: You base your opinion on your assumption that I do not accept anything a skeptic says. You may think that, but it is not true. However, and here is the absolute key point – whenever I criticize something, I always backup my opinion with specific problems I have with the science or the logic. Can you say the same?

Also, you state that you expected me to answer in the context of this post. I did not think it was that relevant. However all you had to do was to ask again being specific instead of accusing me of being dishonest. For example, I asked you for specific scientific findings that would make you change your mind and instead of answering you provided some general statements about scientific process. That is not what I am talking about, but instead of accusing you of dishonesty, I assume you did not understand.

So let me ask again. What specific scientific tests or calculations or observations would it take to convince you of AGW? Again, I am hoping that you will be as specific as possible.

Regards,
John

But if you wish to discuss the tenants of science that Dr. Sagan put forward I can offer some opinions.

1. Whenever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts”. In fact this is a key point and the IPCC shows that there are a huge number of scientists in a number very different fields and areas who each contribute a little bit to the whole. By the way, I pointed this out to you in the past and you made a derogatory comment about them all “singing with the choir”.

2. Encourage substantive debate on the “evidence” by knowledgable proponents of all points of view. Again, I see this going on all the time. But what I also see is people introducing old theories that have been rejected to valid scientific reasons without any new supporting evidence.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight as “authorities” You claim it is not relevant, but I see it happening all the time by people who support a point of view without understanding the science. I have argued with people in the past who post about a topic and their only support was to say that the people who wrote it are very smart - smarter than I am. That is the epitome of appeal to authority.

4. Spin a variety of hypotheses. In the years I have been reading up on the topic there have been a number of hypothesis considered some of which have been validated and accepted (e.g. black soot) and some which the observations do not support (e.g. cosmic rays for clouds). However all are considered.

5.Do not become attached to any hypothesis just because it’s yours. You say fail, but I don’t see this. Can you substantiate your claim.

6. Quantify. If whatever you are explaining has a measure, quantify it so that measurement is more possible. A large number of the components of AGW are quantified and measures – for example the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb or emit IR radiation. Also, I listed above some very specific conditions which would – in my mind – constitute a failure of the hypothesis.

7. If there is a chain argument, then each and every link must work, including the premise. You reject this because you claim #6 is not met but as I just showed, there are specific conditions.

8. Use Occam’s Razor; which is to choose the hypothesis that explains the data in the simplest terms. You claim that the scientists ignore the sun, which is clearly absurd. They do think the sun is the primary driver of climate, but they also think it is constant based on what the observations have shown.

9. Ask: is the Hypothesis testable and falsifiable. Hypothesis that are not testable are not worth much. Covered already.

In regards to Harris's First Law, I see you a law and raise you the Dunning Kruger Effect.

Regards,
John

John: You back up your claims with specific problems you have with the logic or science; true, but those who challenge you on the science specifically,do the same. And, there are far more capable and schooled scientists than you who make up the denier side. I simply refer to them.

I'm not qualified to debate the specific science, but I am qualified to comment on the glaring problems in the politics of AGW and especially the functioning of the IPCC.

I take great issue, as you know, with your refusal to ever give "deniers" any credit, which tells me you are married to the AGW theory ... and thus, bias. If, as a scientist, you only attack the other side and don't offer a balanced critism giving credit where credit is due, then you are a partisan ... like me.

I admit my bias, but for entirely different reasons. I'm interested in the politics of the issue, and the process ... not the numbers. Frankly, I wouldn't stand behind any climate theory at this point, from anyone. The politics and process are broken, and therefore suspect. I post "denier" points of view not because they are "facts", but because they represent a serious, knowledgable, and valid opposition to AGW theory.

My answer to your question: I expect the IPCC to live up to the basic standards outlined in the Sagan list; not literally, but in the basic sense. It is my contention, that the IPCC has not even come close to doing so. If the IPCC does so, and it's science still stands, then I ... and likely many hundreds of thousands of doubters, will begrudgingly accept that AGW has a huge forcing influence. Until the process is fixed though, I'm not buying anything. Until deniers are treated as peers by the IPCC scientists, I'll be a doubter. Until the IPCC adopts transparency, I won't bite. Until the IPCC includes more than just a small number scientists who are AGW fanatics, I won't buy a word of it. Why? Because the process has become political, and not scientific, no matter the numbers.

John: I reject your glowing report card for the IPCC. I'm not going into the whole thing, because it'd take pages for us to debate it out. I'll just deal with #1.

You claim that the IPCC has used the research of a "huge" number of scientists ... define "huge". The IPCC makes this claim (2500), but doesn't offer transparency to it's review process or any way of checking on this "huge" number of scientists. One can't even determine from the IPCC which specific studies were accepted, rejected, or used, and why. The actual number of scientists actively involved with the IPCC seems small, with a handful of key personalities making the decisions. Most involved are not scientists but bureaucrats, activists, and politicians. Much has been written about this fact, with some members of the denier community having to do battle with the IPCC just to get documents that are supposed to be public.

In order to prove your point then, could you present me with a list of all the studies considered by the IPCC, and a detailed description of the reviews. Since this is 2008, I expect you'll find it all in one location and just need to give me the link(s) at the IPCC. Lists of names without designations and links to their CVs etc. don't count. Elementary (for public consumption) descriptions of review, don't count. Lists of "studies", without accompanying links to those actual studies, don't count. I'm asking for varifiable information, not propoganda.

Just for fun, provide a "huge" list of IPCC scientists as well. Not a sign up list like the "deniers" often give, but that huge list of actual researchers who contributed work. Somewhere there are 2500 scientists who contributed to the IPCC process ... I trust they did more than sign a sheet of paper.

I've tried to find the above, and can't. So I call "fail" on #1.

ps: Greg is right ... I shouldn't have resorted to name calling ... I'll save that for Al Gore.

I'm still waiting for Hoss to answer fellas. I'll get back to you tomorrow if he doesn't.

Sea level changed has been argued here before. Your side lost. Search the archives.

Paul: But if you link to others who refute my points, how do you know that they are correct?

In regards to my not giving praise to the good points in a scientific paper, it may seem cruel, but that is what science is like. Responses to papers in articles are almost always criticisms of it (I can’t think of a case that wasn’t) – but that is the way science works. I remember in grad school, the instructor gave us a paper to review which we did. The next day the instructor showed us his published reply. We read it and one of the students commented that he must hate the author of the paper at which point the Instructor replied “Who, Jim – no we go drinking together whenever we meet up”.

But even so I do give credit where I think credit is due. I think that Andrew Watts is providing a useful service in documenting the state of the climate stations and have said so several times (and at least once on your blog). However sometimes he produces analysis which I don’t agree with and again I say so along with a reason.

And finally, you have still not answered my question. You have stated why you don’t trust the process at this time. But lets say the process was working – what science would convince you of the validity of AGW? You asked me this question and I answered, now it is your turn.

Regards,
John

what science would convince you of the validity of AGW?

Actual measurements of the cooler atmosphere adding heat to the warmer earth would be a start. Until such time as that happens I'll assume all paper science is similarily flawed.

In regards to the IPCC, I understand that the information is not available in the specific form that you would like it, however it is all there. In fact the production of the AR4 involved unprecedented openness. The whole report was subject to several rounds of external review made up of people from outside the IPCC.

A list of their comments and the responses are available on the internet. I remember my time as a grad student when literature reviews involved hours in the library instead of pressing a button on the internet. As I said, it may not be in the form you wish, but it is more accessible and transparent than things were 20 years ago.

Regards,
John

ol hoss: I keep asking, what do you see when you look at the ground. Very simple, no fancy measurements necessary.

Regards,
John

John: But if you link to others who refute my points, how do you know that they are correct?

I don't, as I explained, it's not why I link to them.

now it is your turn

I thought I explained myself. When I'm convinced that proper scientific process, free of political manipulation has taken place. If at that time, the hypothesis still stands, I'll accept it. At this point in time I don't trust the process, so I don't accept the thesis.

As far as the IPCC being open and subjected to review by independant sources: You've lost me on that as I've seen no evidence of such. Review was done by very small groups of individuals, who were like minded. Very few scientists actually belong to the IPCC ... but scores work in the shadows ... and are only independent in the broadest of terms. The IPCC rules of operation state that the review process must be made public and detailed out ... I can't find anything like that available.

In regards to the IPCC, I understand that the information is not available in the specific form that you would like it, however it is all there

So, I gather that you have never been able, yourself, to track down and produce a timeline and sequence of all the AGW research and those who produced it, that led us to Kyoto. If you were teaching a class, for instance, that tracked the entire process (like history), and focused on the issues, people, theories, and review ... you couldn't do it without digging and digging to find it.

Considering it's 2008 and the IPCC wants us to spend trillions of dollars on stopping AGW, the least, the very least, they could do is provide linked detail like any blogger could provide. It always amazes me that this incredible lack of transparency doesn't make you nervous. We left the Commodore 64 era a long time ago.

What you are saying, is that if I were a government official and I wanted to study the veracity of the IPCC claims, I'd have to go rooting around the internet and print media to track down the data, papers, individuals, processes, etc., before I could even begin to put together an anylysis.

I'm a political animal, and this fact alone tells me that something is broken ... very very badly.

Paul: If it is the supposed political influence that is bothering you then you should accept everything up to about 1980 or so. For example the basic idea that CO2 was producing a greenhouse effect was first proposed about 100 years ago. A large part of our experimental work on CO2 and IR radiation came out of research by the military in the 1950’s who were interested in developing heat seeking technology. So are you prepared to accept that part of it?

In regards to the transparency of the IPCC, the limits of Kate’s blog that eats any post of mine that has any more than 1 link precludes me from linking all the appropriate parts, but here is this is the list of comments by the expert reviews and the responses to the comments (click the agree). All the comments were recorded and responded to.

The question is who is an expert reviewer and the answer is – literally – anyone. All you had to do was request to be a reviewer and sign an agreement that you would keep your review confidential until the final report is released. Thus there was the opportunity for anyone to review the report. So it was not a collection of like minded individuals who looked at it, but a broad group including a number of prominent skeptics.

You also say ” It always amazes me that this incredible lack of transparency doesn't make you nervous.. That is because to see no lack of transparency. Everything is available and as I said before is in a much more available form than when I was a grad student.

Regards,
John