[litespeed (OP)]

maz - You wrote: "...I find it endlessly amusing that there are many bloggers and self appointed experts (often with no scientific background)  who know better than the scientists."

Perhaps the Hockey Stick Gang are not actually scientists at all. I am not a scientist but have studied the last 2,500 years of climate variability three ways to Sunday, and the Hockey Stick looks more like a witches crooked cane.  My conclusion is The Hockey Stick Gang is either an ignorant rabble, or deliberated racketeers.

PS: If you want MY credentials here they are. Twenty five years as a Congressional Investigator with the USGAO. Yeah. For instance EYE was a junior member of the multimillion dollar study in the 1970's on metrification. You are forgiven if you do not thank me the government did not replace 40,000 miles of Interstate signs with 'Exit .6 Kilometers'.

[Mazurka]

Personally, I do not have the time, nor the knowledge/ intellect to assimilate literally thousands of studies and papers on disparate subjects to reach my own conclusion about climate change. I do not think that any one individual actually can do so, which leads to the often critisized consensus science typified by the IPCC.  However as I am very interested in the science I have read all of the AR4 report as I regard it as the most reputable summary of the state of the art.  I appreciate that there are a few elements that have been seriously disputed, but overall I found it quite compelling and well argued.  I think that everyone who has a serious interest in the debate needs to be familiar with this document.

As a consequence I think it is misleading to suggest that the climate change "establishment" suppresses dissent and does not disseminate data as the  McIntyre/ McKitrick analysis (and peer reviewed publication of the analysis) of Mann et al’s Hockey Stick paper demonstrates.  That a subsequent re-evaluation by a third research group (Wahl et al.) suggests that the proxy data does indeed fit the “hockey stick” demonstrates an integrity of process widely ignored by the blogosphere (exemplified by popular sites like “Watts Up With That” and “Climate Audit”).

Personally, I dislike the Hockey Stick – as I think it is an oversimplified concept to try and sell climate science to the public and consequently easy to critisize – and I agree that the graph looks more like a curly hazel stick than a hockey stick.  Furthermore, it does not address issues such as the medieval warm period etc. but smearing or denigrating the authors (without evidence of incompetence) is clearly not a scientifically credible argument. 

Much of the contrarian analysis of the data seems to rely on careful choice of the statistical parameters and other “tricks”, thus lack the rigour required for publication in peer reviewed journals. This results in a chicken and egg situation, as the blogosphere cries foul (or is that fowl?)  because the journals won’t accept papers for publishing and so the researchers with expertise in the relevant field do not dispute or critisize the unpublishable work leading to accusations of climate science being a closed shop…  The obvious way to prevent this is not to release the data to all and sundry, which gets us to the position we are in today.  I think another reason to be careful with data is illustrated by the cockup or conspiracy that revolved around the incorrect data about arctic ice extent/ thickness being published on the cryosphere website a couple of years back

In my opinion the biggest problem with the debate about AGW is that the science is nearly always lost amongst the spin and hype that is applied by the media before it reaches the public. The other issue is that in many respects AGW is a political question, not a purely scientific one since any decisions taken to try and address the problem will be made by our elected representatives rather than by scientists. It is not helpful that the media repeatedly demonstrate ignorance of scientific method and the frequent quoting out of context that occurs.  Ben Goldacre’s website “bad science” has some interesting comments about the ability of university press departments to prejudice the media’s reporting of research… 

[peppercorn]

I am not a scientist but...   My conclusion is....

Then, whatever your conclusion is it is no more valid than any other non-scientist. I think you would do well to remember that!
These 'guys' you are talking about so dismissively probably have more PhD's between them than you've had hot dinners, so excuse me if I have a tenancy to trust their judgement more than yours.
As for you boosting that you 'served' Uncle Sam for years, this has what relevance?  Also do you think that 90% of the population cares what units the US marks off it's highways in?

[BenV]

Also do you think that 90% of the population cares what units the US marks off it's highways in?

Not to mention all the non-american people on here, who really couldn't care less.

[litespeed (OP)]

Mazurka - You wrote: "Personally, I do not have the time, nor the knowledge/ intellect to assimilate literally thousands of studies and papers on disparate subjects to reach my own conclusion about climate change. I do not think that any one individual actually can do so..."

You sell yourself short. As a lifelong program analyst/investigator, I have observed that a diligent individual will have little difficulty not only understanding any given topic area, but often becomes more acquaited with the larger picture then those he interviews.

For instance, I can interview a dozen experts and read everything they provide in just a couple of weeks.  Did it for decades. Most of those interviewed are generally very narrow in their expertise. In fact, I often found experts who would more or less interview me to find out what else was going on. The internet has reduced the time needed to do the same by about half.

[litespeed (OP)]

pepper: You seem intimidated by people with high titles in positions of power.  I delt with such people for decades, and they have no special super powers. They are generally easy to interview if you have done preliminary work and show up with a decently informed list of queries. My interviews seldom lasted more then four hours each.  Further, they are almost always delighted to provide their publications and will answer follow up questions with flattered delight and at length.

The results of my 'research' amounted to something that might be called a 'meta' study today. This is not rocket science.

[litespeed (OP)]

BenV - You wrote: " [Peper wrote: "Also do you think that 90% of the population cares what units the US marks off it's highways in?"Not to mention all the non-american people on here, who really couldn't care less.

Exactly what our investigation showed. Not changing to the metric system was a matter of supernatural indifference to almost the entire population. This would have changed dramatically had we suggested all the signs either be given silly conversions, or moved and reinstalled to match metric.

And don't get me started on paint cans, cement blocks, or bricks. These were areas of my personal investigative responsibility. Leave it at this:  ALL of us were educated in science classes to believe the inherent superiority of metric.  ALL of us expected to find metrification would be a good suggestion. However, after two weeks of preliminary study, ALL of us changed our minds.

Ordinary people can easily explore these things and are often more objective in observation then the specialist who have years, or even decades, of narrow experience, or even invested interests.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Madi - I am watching your Beavis and Butthead video and will comment as I go along from time to time. However, I wish you had simply listed the URL I now provide below.  That you post Beavis and Butthead videos to make your point is, well, dissapointing

I'm getting Deja vu, haven't we had this discussion before?

I'd like to quote Bored Chemist -

The real problem is that he thinks it matters.
I don't care if the video was fronted by an naturalist, a "Shakspearean Actor" or a gorrilla in a tutu.
The facts remain facts.

[Bored chemist]

I must have missed something.
How is the US choice of units for measuring roads related to the change in global temperatures?
Something like 90% of the world's population will never see a road sign, or anything else, in the USA.

[peppercorn]

pepper: You seem intimidated by people with high titles in positions of power.  I delt with such people for decades, and they have no special super powers.

Mmmm, don't know where you got the idea that I'm intimidated by... how did you put it? ... people with high titles.
I can only infer that you are talking about the scientist at the IPCC, etc.  I'm not intimidated by them, I do however have respect for their better understanding of the climate than myself.
As for asking them questions, I'd be more than happy to have the opportunity!

The results of my 'research' amounted to something that might be called a 'meta' study today. This is not rocket science.

I'm glad to see you had the sense to put your 'research' in inverted commas.

[Bored chemist]

BTW, for the benefit of those who say the data is not available I recommend that you look at, for example, the second post in this thread.

[ukmicky]

BTW, for the benefit of those who say the data is not available I recommend that you look at, for example, the second post in this thread.

Its not as simple as plotting a temperature rise on a graph an saying thats due to human influence.

[nixietube]

BTW, for the benefit of those who say the data is not available I recommend that you look at, for example, the second post in this thread.

Its not as simple as plotting a temperature rise on a graph an saying thats due to human influence.

It looks more interesting when you overlay global population onto the same graph.

[nixietube]

Here is another graph for good measure.

[litespeed (OP)]

nixie - Your temperatures and population graphs don't match. Specifically, your population graph shows not one blip for the catastrophic population declines in Eurasia during the Black Death. The estimate is population declined from as little as 25% to as much as 50%.  In addition, it does not show a blip when Native Americans were reduced by Eurpean diseases to as high as 90 percent, by some calculations.

Please provide sources for a stable population during the pre-industrial age.

[litespeed (OP)]

nixie

Further, your other chart shows significant changes since 1850. Well DUH. The Little Ice Age ended at about that time. The previous couple of centuries were cold as hell. The Thames and Delaware rivers routinely froze over. Subsequent warming was a welcome change.

This stuff is really not all that difficult. I will ask you one question. Was Britain as war or warmer in Roman times then it is now?  This is a very very easy question.....

[nixietube]

litespeed, just before I go find you a ladder to climb down from your high horse, let me point out to you that my posts were to add to the comment made by ukmicky.

[litespeed (OP)]

nixietube - You wrote: "... just before I go find you a ladder to climb down from your high horse, let me point out to you that my posts were to add to the comment made by ukmicky."

What's your point?  Your population graph shows nothing but continued population increase, which seems ill informed. Further, your 1800 - 2005(?) graph is less then useless since it does not include ANY of the previous warming or cooling events.

More importantly, you have ignored my question temperatures in Roman Era Britain. And I will give you a leg up. Whatever the correct answer, it is not a local phenomena. As for high horses? Somebody needs to lead from the front.....

[nixietube]

What's your point?  Your population graph shows nothing but continued population increase, which seems ill informed.

ukmicky said: "Its not as simple as plotting a temperature rise on a graph and saying thats due to human influence. "


Human influence being the key here, the population growth post industrialisation is STAGGERING.

Further, your 1800 - 2005(?) graph is less then useless since it does not include ANY of the previous warming or cooling events.

More importantly, you have ignored my question temperatures in Roman Era Britain. And I will give you a leg up. Whatever the correct answer, it is not a local phenomena. As for high horses? Somebody needs to lead from the front.....

You appear to have lost all track of this thread.  The temperature graph IS NOT MINE. Take a look back to post #2 in this thread. 

So, my point is simple. To remind people of the SCALES involved. 7 billion people.. are you suggesting we have NO EFFECT on this planet? Billions of Joules of energy released from stored deposits .. are you suggesting that has NO EFFECT?

I have no desire to continue this with you, and the fact is I was not even seeking your input, or input from anyone else. My questions in this post are rhetorical, they require no answer from you.

[litespeed (OP)]

nixie - I like your moxie, and resign my position since I did not adequately follow the thread. And I don't blame you if you decline to respond further.  However, the number of humans on the planet is entirely irrelevant to the discussion as would be the number of dynosaurs on the planet during previous epochs.  Once upon a time CO2 eating Stormatalites dominated the entire planet.  They were responsible for delivering oxygen in sufficient quantities for subsequent animal populations.

My basic proposition is humans believe they are way much more important then they really are. This has always been the case and I doubt it will ever change. Its all about ME ME ME. When the time comes, Mother Nature Will Eat Us All Alive.  And it will have NOTHING to do with coal fired power plants.  Are you entirely unaware ALL fossil fuels were generated from the earths very own generously productive climate?

In addition Ice Ages are recurrent, for various reasons, and are WAY worse for life on earth then warmer epochs.  In fact, we are now in a climate optimum.  Leave it to egocentric human kind to find this is a bad thing. Jeeze.