Looks like  we have the usual self hate post regarding the imaginary catastrophic effects of AGW. I still await any eveidence to suggest that AGW ,is merely more than a figment of the socially inept middle classes. Observing a warming world doesn't qualify as one, calamitous  climate modelling  certainly isn't, and the mutterings of a few crackpots never will be.

Yawn.

Thanks for turning up SC.

The Geological Society have issued this statement (some months ago)

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf

Well worth reading as it sets modern AGW in the context of the geological record.

You're absolutely right. I am delighted we agree on this.

I assume that you are referring to the plethora of dubious sites pedalling sceptic and denialist propaganda.

SC, if you think getting something published in the peer-reviewed literature involves nothing more than buying a round at the Nineteenth Hole, then I strongly suggest you have a go yourself.

Hint: you might be in for a nasty surprise!

Cheers - John

SC, if you think getting something published in the peer-reviewed literature involves nothing more than buying a round at the Nineteenth Hole, then I strongly suggest you have a go yourself.

Hint: you might be in for a nasty surprise!

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

I would think that to get peer reviewed consensus supporting research published is far far easier than for research that does not support the consensus. And that most probably, has always been the case.

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

Do you really think that is the case?  I thought peer review was about checking the robustness of the work, not testing the conclusions against "accepted thinking"?

A poor paper is a poor paper, whether it supports a hypothesis or proposes an alternative or modification.

Cheers - John

Yes but we all know how scientists who support AGW view people who dare question the consensus (their term for such people  is skeptics or denier) and how fearful they are of being labelled a sceptic themself. Such attitudes ensures a lack of objectivity in climate science.

But we also know how scientists who don't support the mainstream AGW science view people who dare question their consensus (their term for such people is liars or fraudsters) and how fearful they are of being labelled as consensus supporting themselves. Such attitudes ensures a lack of objectivity in those who don't support the findings of mainstream climate science.

So, as ever, the best way forward is to look at the evidence, data and theories. Beware of those who wont, or who seek to cast unreasonable doubt on those things.

Well I don't think it was a particularly good point by Polarwind and as he has not contributed further on the point I think the answer is that his view is incorrect.

As for your contribution, what can I say?  Clearly your definition of 'fact' means a fact with with you agree and not any fact.

I suggest you read the paper at the link provided by Tom (post 528 above), which describes climate changes in geological terms.  It is a fact beyond any misunderstanding or dispute that we have driven GHGs to a level not seen for at least 2.5 million years.  At that time temperatures were 2-3C higher than now and sea levels 10-25 metres higher.

Is this a FACT that you are able to hold in your head, in between all of your scepticism and cynicism?

You missunderstand the reality of science. The outstanding issue surrounding AGW (with respect to its impact on global temperature) is: What is the senstivity of the earth's climate to doubling of CO2 ? You will not find any scientist who disagrees. Now the consensus is that it is about 3C with an uncertainty of about 1C. Now the factors that determine this are feedbacks and amongst these the biggest uncertainty is cloud (some will argue that albedo and carbon cycle feedback may be comparable). Research into these areas is highly technical and it is not obvious when the paper is produced how the results of the research will affect the feedback. Indeed papers on cloud physics tend to come unstuck when they try to argue directly from the results how they will affect climate rather than focussing on the cloud physics itself.

So it is highly technical science away from the frontine of any climate change debate that will determine the answer of the  senstivity of climate to CO2

There is only one word that adequately describes that post, and apologies to FM but I am going to say so.

Bullshit.

Cheers - John

SC, if you think getting something published in the peer-reviewed literature involves nothing more than buying a round at the Nineteenth Hole, then I strongly suggest you have a go yourself.

Hint: you might be in for a nasty surprise!

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

I would think that to get peer reviewed consensus supporting research published is far far easier than for research that does not support the consensus. And that most probably, has always been the case.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Do you really think that is the case?  I thought peer review was about checking the robustness of the work, not testing the conclusions against "accepted thinking"?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Yes, I do think it's the case and is the same accross many area's of science. In the climate science arena, the infamous leaked emails made it all too clear that anyone with non consensus research papers, seeking publication, were being denied by co-ordinated actions by leading figures of the AGW consensus. Or have you forgotten that already?

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

Ahh, we're back to conspiracy theory again then?

SC, if you think getting something published in the peer-reviewed literature involves nothing more than buying a round at the Nineteenth Hole, then I strongly suggest you have a go yourself.

Hint: you might be in for a nasty surprise!

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

I would think that to get peer reviewed consensus supporting research published is far far easier than for research that does not support the consensus. And that most probably, has always been the case.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Do you really think that is the case?  I thought peer review was about checking the robustness of the work, not testing the conclusions against "accepted thinking"?

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Yes, I do think it's the case and is the same accross many area's of science. In the climate science arena, the infamous leaked emails made it all too clear that anyone with non consensus research papers, seeking publication, were being denied by co-ordinated actions by leading figures of the AGW consensus. Or have you forgotten that already?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Aye indeed they have PW, and one of the reasons why my stance has hardened over the years. Also I've noticed   bullying tatics being deployed towards members on here who never post in a inflammatory manner, but who are being heckled for daring to question. 

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

You regard heckling as bullying?

SC, if you think getting something published in the peer-reviewed literature involves nothing more than buying a round at the Nineteenth Hole, then I strongly suggest you have a go yourself.

Hint: you might be in for a nasty surprise!

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

I would think that to get peer reviewed consensus supporting research published is far far easier than for research that does not support the consensus. And that most probably, has always been the case.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Do you really think that is the case?  I thought peer review was about checking the robustness of the work, not testing the conclusions against "accepted thinking"?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Yes, I do think it's the case and is the same accross many area's of science. In the climate science arena, the infamous leaked emails made it all too clear that anyone with non consensus research papers, seeking publication, were being denied by co-ordinated actions by leading figures of the AGW consensus. Or have you forgotten that already?

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

Well I am involved in peer review both giving it and getting it and I disagree. The main problem actually is people not having time to read a paper carefully and still commenting so there is some poor quality reviewing but that is very easy to deal with by the authors.

SC, if you think getting something published in the peer-reviewed literature involves nothing more than buying a round at the Nineteenth Hole, then I strongly suggest you have a go yourself.

Hint: you might be in for a nasty surprise!

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: TomC 

I would think that to get peer reviewed consensus supporting research published is far far easier than for research that does not support the consensus. And that most probably, has always been the case.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Do you really think that is the case?  I thought peer review was about checking the robustness of the work, not testing the conclusions against "accepted thinking"?

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Yes, I do think it's the case and is the same accross many area's of science. In the climate science arena, the infamous leaked emails made it all too clear that anyone with non consensus research papers, seeking publication, were being denied by co-ordinated actions by leading figures of the AGW consensus. Or have you forgotten that already?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Well I am involved in peer review both giving it and getting it and I disagree. The main problem actually is people not having time to read a paper carefully and still commenting so there is some poor quality reviewing but that is very easy to deal with by the authors.

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

I don't doubt that much peer review is undertaken with complete integrity and is a critical part of scientific progress, but I do think polarwind has a point. The idea that peer review always takes place in a vacuum of scientific purity is something I don't accept. Funding, reputations, relationships and pressures from outside the world of 'science' all, I believe, play a role in determining what and how papers are reviewed.

So, would you get your science from the IPCC or WUWT?

Everything should be questioned and yes, some things are less likely to stand up to questioning. Having said that, it's not just a case of everything is bad on WUWT and everything is good from the IPCC. Peer review is not holy scripture, I believe it is subject to the caveats I outlined above. If it were a straight choice then of course it would be the IPCC, but it isn't, and why should it be?

I cannot believe that you need to ask that question.

If you were ill would you (a) go to your doctor, or (b) find a site that didn't believe in conventional medicine and accept the advice you found there instead?

I think you are confusing the fact that the IPCC report will contain uncertainties with the fact that sites like WUWT simply try to exploit facts to suit their specific agendas.

If you really think that sites with an acknowledged agenda to pour doubt on AGW are remotely to be trusted then we have a bigger problem than I hoped.

There's plenty of people who do that Gandalf, but I'm not one of them.

 I don't for a minute think that WUWT is in any way comparable with the IPCC. All I'm saying is that everything should be questioned. If it is wrong then it won't stand up to questioning.

We are talking about peer review and recent controversies on issues such as stem cell research and the infamous MMR debacle show that it is not always beyond reproach.