Can Alarmists learn the truth about the falsified AGW hoax?

A respondent (let's call him "Jay") on a Climate Change Discussion forum has questioned some of this blog's positions.

The first was why do we use the pejorative (my word, not his) term Global Warming Nazis, a term first coined by Roy Spencer:

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened. 

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back. 

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

Next, for some strange reason, he mentions the multi-flawed 97% myth.

I find the ethics of the argument against the 97% based on an economic argument. And you can claim the percentage hogwash but its a fact that there have been on 3 papers that countered the findings that have been peer reviewed.

Economic? Check the numbers, Jay. It's numeric. First, you have a flawed paper by

Not a good day for Alarmists

The falsified man made global warming (AGW) hypothesis keeps crumbling. We know that soon they won't have a leg to stand on; although you can be sure that they will increase their shrill stories of horror.

AS has been pointed on these pages by Don Easterbrook:

The West Antarctic ice sheet is NOT collapsing, the retreat of these small glaciers is NOT caused by global warming, and sea level is NOT going to rise 10 feet.

THEN there is the constant cry by Alarmists that Global Warming is causing Extreme Weather.

However,  Even The UN Says Extreme Weather Isn't Caused By Global Warming. (H/t Climate Depot)

A study published in the July 2012 Journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms:  

Even the UN's IPCC the holy authority of the Church of Global Warming, doesn't agree with Holdren's climate change causes everything theory. 

“We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls,” the authors state, “but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.”

...In its [IPCC]newly released Fifth Assessment Report, the panel backed away from connections between current droughts and climate change. As it noted: “Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated,” and “there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.” The report states that “it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has … decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.”

Then there is the warming hiatus. There has been NO global warming for almost 18 years.

The Alarmists say that man made CO2 emission are causing dangerous warming. Although Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 363.71 in 1997 to 396.48 in 2013, there has been no corresponding rise in global temperatures.

The accepted science is that rises in temperatures precede rises in atmospheric CO2.

Now we read (H/t No Frakking Consensus) that

Experts Condemn the IPCC at US Hearing

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is at an important inflection point. Next year Rajendra Pachauri, its appalling chairman, will finally exit the stage and a replacement will be selected.
In a sane world, it would be obvious to everyone that this organization is rotten to the core. Many of its worst habits predate the current chairman, whose tenure began in 2002. The IPCC claims to be scientific, but is actually riddled with activism and politics (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). 

.....................

Today an important hearing is taking place in Washington, D.C. The US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is examining the IPCC process. It is receiving written and oral testimony from four prominent IPCC experts, each of whom has had played some role in the IPCC process:  

• economist Richard Tol [written submission]
• astrophysicist Michael Oppenheimer [written submission]
• biologist Daniel Botkin [verbal testimony]
• meteorologist Roger Pielke Sr. [written submission]

Daniel Botkin changed sides: (link - pdf)

I have been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate  and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions”.

Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, has revealed how the environmental movement being hijacked by the political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology. 

Patrick Moore........ told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet. 

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said.

Oh, and the polar bears are doing very well, thank you.

Peter’s Bet - The $10K Challenge

Anthony Cox

Peter Laux has offered $10000 to anyone who can produce empirical evidence proving man-made global warming [AGW]. Peter’s offer is in the form of a Statutory Declaration, which is neither here nor there. Peter’s wording is:

I offer you $10,000.00 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming

This is an invitation to treat which differs fundamentally from a contract and being bound by contractual terms. An invitation to treat can be thought of as a prelude to entering a contract and being bound by contractual terms. Basically Peter is inviting people to submit offers about the proof for AGW which he may then convert into contractual terms.

As part of this invitation to treat people were invited to submit their offers to the Climate Guy blog site of Denis Rancourt.

The invitation has attracted the usual alarmists, well-meaning and not. John Byatt, blogging as Duchess Judy John Byatt, has claimed he has satisfied the terms of the contract and is eligible for the $10000 bounty.

John’s ‘proof’ is that 

The RF for CO2 is currently 1.68Wm2

And that Peter has accepted this RF [radiative forcing] figure for CO2 by saying it is a: 

statement of RF for CO2 nothing more

Obviously Peter has not accepted that the finding by the IPCC that the RF of CO2 is currently 1.68Wm2 is a fact. He has merely acknowledged that the RF for CO2 of 1.68W/m^2 is what the IPCC has most recently produced.

The history of the IPCC’s figures for the RF for CO2 is a dynamic one. The RF for CO2 is usually expressed in a temperature response to a doubling of CO2. This temperature response in turn is a measure of the climate sensitivity of CO2. Christopher Monckton has found this climate sensitivity of CO2 has changed over the history of AGW and in the various IPCC reports.

The current figure for the RF of CO2 was produced in 1998 in Myhre et al in Table 3. The formula in Myrhe et al for calculating the RF of CO2 is a logarithmic formula because Beers Law says that increases in CO2 will have a decreasing effect. CO2 in 1850 when the modern warming began as the Little Ice Age ended was about 280 parts per million [the same as it was in 1750 as shown in the above IPCC chart for RF from 1750]. The current concentration of CO2 is about 400 parts per million. Putting those amounts into Myhre et al’s formula gives the following result:

F (W/m^2) = 5.35 ln (CO2 / CO2 [starting]) = 1.91W/m^2

So even using the IPCC’s own formula for calculating the RF for CO2 we get a difference. Admittedly the RF of 1.91W/m^2 is within the error range of the IPCC which is 1.68W/m^2 [1.33 – 2.03]. But the temperature range this RF should have produced is outside the temperature range consistent with such a forcing. That range should have been between 1.14C – 1.33C. In fact the temperature increase since 1880 has been 0.7C.

The RF for CO2 and the climate sensitivity for CO2 has been all over the place in the AGW science. For instance, apart from the contradictions from the IPCC, the seminal AGW paper by Foster and Rahmstorf finds a ‘pure’ temperature response from CO2 RF ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr⁻¹

This finding translates to a climate sensitivity for CO2 RF of 1.4 – 1.8C which is markedly less than the IPCC range of 3.26 – 3.8ºC.

Also of interest is the comparison between the RF of CO2 and the RF of solar. Figure 9.1 from AR4 shows the result of RF from different sources including CO2 and solar:

Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C

The images clearly show the temperature result from solar (a) and CO2 [greenhouse gases but predominantly CO2, (c)] are different. This hasn’t stopped Real Climate, the major pro AGW and IPCC blog, from claiming there is an equivalence between RF from a doubling of CO2 and a 2% increase in solar.

But are 2XCO2 and a 2% increase in solar equivalent? Solar forcing is 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power [1366W/m^2/4 at the Top of Atmosphere] which heats the surface to 287K [384.7 W/m^2 of radiated power] for a net gain of 384.7/341.5 = 1.1 [solar forcing]. The IPCC claims that 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing from 2XCO2 absorption causes a ~ 3C rise in the surface temperature. If you add 3C to 287K and convert to power, the Earth’s surface emits 401.1 W/m^2, which is an increase of 16.4 W/m^2. This means that the IPCC claim of gain, relative to power from CO2 forcing, is 16.4/3.7 = 4.43, which is about 4x higher than solar forcing which is not an equivalence.

The point of this is to show that the RF of CO2 is NOT a settled amount even in the AGW science. 

For anyone to say a particular RF for CO2 proves AGW is therefore absurd.

In my opinion Peter’s invitation to treat does not have to be converted into a contract subject to verification any time yet.

IPCC AR5 put into question by Peer reviewed Paper

Tibetan Plateau

We often hear from the Global Warming Nazis that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were restricted to parts of the Northern Hemisphere. Eg the IPCC and some gobbledy-gook from UNSkeptic Science. 

However peer reviewed papers say other wise. 

A recent paper by Datsenko et al published in Russian Meteorology and Hydrology

January 2014, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 17-21  

has put into question  part of the IPCC AR5:

"It follows that the statement of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about the unprecedented nature of the current warming is unjustified."

Abstract (link) (bold added)

Comparison with the climate of the past centuries has demonstrated until recently the unprecedented warming at the scale of the last millennium at least. This is embodied in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, recently the studies have appeared putting this statement into question. A new 1000-year long reconstruction based on the tree-ring variations of the long-living Chinese junipers (Sabina Przewalskii Kom.) growing in the northeastern part of the Tibetan Plateau reveals that the climate during and immediately after the medieval maximum of solar activity was warmer that the present-day one, all subsequent cooling coincided with the periods of low solar activity, and the warming in the 1970s–1990s followed a new maximum of the solar activity which peak fell on the 1960s.

Hat tip to CO2  Science

What was done
The six scientists - three Chinese and three Russian - developed a new 1000-year-long history of the temperature of the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, based on a new method of analyzing very long tree-ring data that they developed and christened eigen analysis, which is described in detail in the studies of Yang et al. (2011a,b). This they did while working with Przewalskii juniper trees growing at a height of approximately 3000 meters in the mountainous region of China, many of which had been alive for over a full millennium.

What was learned
Datsenko et al. determined that "the climate during and immediately after the medieval maximum of solar activity was warmer than the present-day," and that all subsequent periods of cooling coincided with "periods of low solar activity." Furthermore, they note that S.G. Shiyatov, the most well-known Russian dendrochronologist, corroborates this viewpoint, in that the upper treeline history of the past millennium that he (Shiyatov, 2003) developed "corresponds well," as they describe it, "to the juniper growth reconstruction."

What it means
Put very bluntly, the Chinese/Russian research team states in their paper's concluding sentence that in regard to what they discovered, "it follows that the statement of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about the unprecedented nature of the current warming is unjustified."

More of CO2 Science's world wide MWP papers here  - CO2 Science - MWP project

The 97% Myth means 97% Failure of Alarmists

Global Warming Nazis (GWNs) stop showing your ignorance. This blog has previously exposed this 97% figure to be wrong many times (eg inter alia here, here and here) and it has also been exposed elsewhere as coming from flawed studies in many other locations.


And yet the GWNs keep rolling out this false figure.  One must ask why?

Is it because that is all they have? They know that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified. They know that they have no proof that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.

Then there is that other false claim from the GWNs. Sceptics are funded by BigOil. Also false. (Pssst B/O...if you have a few mill to spare the bank account details are at the top of the page....)

This however has not stopped them from getting more and more shrill.

So, our side, the realists side of the "climate change" debate have to keep shooting down their falsehoods. One will be re-blasted here and then the MWP myth in our next post.

Joe Bast and Roy Spencer have written the latest exposee of the Myth of the Climate Change '97%'.

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent." 

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." 

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.

The first talk of the Naomi Oreskes "study" that is so ridiculous that surely neither side takes any notice of it. Then they move on to the Doran and Zimmerman 2009 study.

It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem.

 Moving on to Anderegg:

His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

Then they come to the most ridiculous study by Cook et al which was exposed by Lord Monckton on these pages HERE - where it was shown that Cook's 97.1% was in fact a miniscule 0.3%.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing." 

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." 

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Tale of two Editors; One with Spine

In his post Banned Again, Anthony Cox wrote:

But the fact is it doesn’t matter who you are, if you are a sceptic you will be attacked by alarmists. They will censor you, abuse you, nit pick your arguments and avoid any concession or acknowledgment of a problem with AGW. I have seen the best climate scientists in the world be abused and criticised for merely being sceptical; people like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, the Pielkes, junior and senior, Judith Curry, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Stuart Franks and so on have all been subject to approbrium for their scepticism.

 The difference is how editors treat the attacks from the Green Monsters. Some are cowed by them and give in; others show more spine and let both sides have a fair go.

Tom Harris is the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition. Tom wrote an opinion piece for The Providence Journal (the major newspaper in Rhode Island) under the heading Noble Lies are Damaging Environmentalism which concluded:

Yet because of the obsession with climate, billions of dollars that could be spent on energy research and real pollution abatement are wasted on useless and potentially dangerous projects such as pumping carbon dioxide underground and the widespread deployment of unsustainable technologies like wind power. This impoverishes society, making us less able to afford activities we need to enhance energy security and protect the health of our citizens and the environment. 

The idea that we control the climate of planet Earth will eventually be widely regarded as a costly mistake. Experts who knew this but promoted the deception for what they considered good reasons will be disgraced. Then no one will believe scientists when they warn us of real wolves at our doors.

Tom's informative piece was attacked by Peter Kuntz - Listen only to IPCC scientists

Shame on The Journal for printing the May 3 Commentary piece “‘Noble Lies’ are damaging environmentalism.” The lies are Harris’, a professional climate denier, who is part of the billion-dollar fossil fuel denial operation, modeled directly on big tobacco’s denial that smoking causes lung cancer.

However, the lies were from Kuntz.

 Tom said:

People told me this was libel (e.g., https://twitter.com/AmyRidenour/status/465566580043448321) and that I should take legal action against the paper. So, I contacted the editor and mentioned this to him and asked for permission to write another opinion piece about how such attacks are poisoning the climate debate. He agreed.

Tom's next opinion piece appeared May 21st entitled: Get real about climate change.

We hear it over and over, “Climate change is real. Only industry-funded ‘deniers’ disagree.” 

This is ridiculous.

No scientist denies that climate changes. Geology professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University explains, “Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” Scientists like Patterson deny that they deny climate change — they are climate denial deniers. 

If anyone could rationally be labeled climate change deniers, it is those who hold the absurd view that our climate was relatively tranquil until the arrival of humans. They seem to not know that half of North America was under a vast ice sheet only 22,000 years ago. And, as Patterson has written, “Ten thousand years ago . . . temperatures rose as much as 6 degrees C in a decade — 100 times faster than the past century’s 0.6 degrees C warming.” 

The “deniers” label is an attempt to equate those who question political correctness on climate to Holocaust deniers. It is designed to frighten dissenters into silence.

Lovely people these Global Warming Nazis, trying to frighten dissenters. Why don't they try to prove their case? Where is that one bit of evidence that shows CO2 is a pollutant causing runaway global warming.

Tom points out that one of the most distinguished Climate Scientist, Dr Tim Ball has had death threats and mentions the recent events concerning Swedish Meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson:

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish climate scientist and research fellow at the University of Reading, is a case in point. After recently defecting from the climate alarmist camp and joining the advisory council of Britain’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a think tank of climate change skeptics, Bengtsson quickly decided to quit the group. In his resignation letter, he explained, “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.” 

Another Alarmists attack appeared.

David M. Wulff: Stop publishing opinions that appeal to ill-informed readers

Once again The Journal has stooped to printing the cynical pap that Tom Harris is insidiously skilled at dishing out

Wullf's letter continues with cynical pap that Tom Countered with:

Attacks replace serious discussion about climate 

David M. Wulff demonstrates the logical fallacies — errors in reasoning — that are ruining the climate debate (“Stop publishing opinions that appeal to ill-informed readers,” letter, May 22). 

According to Wulff, my article is “cynical pap” that I am “insidiously skilled at dishing out”. He says I employ “facile contempt” and “patently appeal to ill-informed readers.” 

His attack is an ad hominem (against the man instead of the idea) logical fallacy often used to try to discredit an advocate. 

Next, Wulff employs the straw man fallacy, attacking things he says I said, but, in reality, did not. He asserts that I attribute “to concerned climate scientists” the belief that “climate was relatively tranquil until the arrival of humans.” In fact, I did not identify who holds this view, although I could have cited former Canadian environment minister Stéphane Dion who once made the silly remark that, “Climate change is a new phenomenon, a very worrying one, but a new phenomenon.”

So, the Editor of the Providence Journal has shown some backbones and has not let the Global Warming Nazis frighten him into silence. Unfortunately, that backbone is not shown by others in the media.

UPDATE:

Tom Harris' comment:

The NIPCC report that I referenced in my articles may be seen at www.climatechangereconsidered.org .

Tom Harris
www.climatescienceinternational.org

Banned Again.

Anthony Cox

I’ve been banned or censored from many sites for daring to criticise and ridicule what I consider to be the lie of man-made global warming [AGW].

I was banned from Open Mind for daring to talk about the Great Pacific Climate Change [GPCC] and its effect on temperature, a subject I later co-authored a paper about with David Stockwell. That paper although not published in a Journal still receives regular views and citations. David and I did another paper in response to Grant Foster’s [who runs Open Mind] critique of McLean’s famous paper about natural trends. It is now the case that natural factors are being accepted as capable of producing temperature trends as well as just variation.

I have been banned from Real Climate for talking about the excitation rate of CO2 and the impact on that by Beers Law; that was my first run in with Eli Rabett, the pseudonym of Josh Halpen, a prominent AGW wise guy.

Andrew Bolt banned me for using Richard Dawkins meme theory to compare Islam to a virus. I think he is now coming around to my point of view.

The Conversation has so heavily censored me that I gave up going there.

I have been banned from The Drum. When Jonathan Green was editor we had some tussles because he is a dyed in the wool alarmist. He still published me, by myself and when I co-authored articles with Jo Nova and David Stockwell. But when a patronising astronomer called Michael Brown questioned my ‘credentials’ and therefore eligibility to comment on AGW,  Jonathan, or at least the ABC’s internal committee, made my first degree disappear. The sorry saga is described here. Still Jonathan Green was better than his successor, Chip Rowley, who allows no sceptics including me from being published at his Drum.

Now On Line Opinion (OLO) has stepped up and banned me from writing any more articles on AGW. Graham Young, the editor of OLO has said he wastes too much time checking what I write to prevent his site looking foolish. He only wants experts to write about AGW.

I was first attracted to OLO when Clive Hamilton got the sulks because Graham was allowing too many ‘deniers’ to be published. Clive packed his bald skull and whatever he calls a bat and left the building. Hamilton is a serial offender and wanted ‘deniers’ to be banned from the ABC. David Stockwell and I responded to this in the good old days when our ABC belonged to everyone and not just the left elite. There is a certain irony that Hamilton’s views were finally successful in having sceptics banned from The Drum and now after banning OLO from his opinion Hamilton’s spirit lives on in having a sceptic banned from writing about AGW science at OLO.

What Hamilton was advocating was just plain old censorship; and it was censorship based on the same premise as every example of censorship is based on: that is the censors are better, smarter and more moral than those who need to be censored. For Hamilton the myth of the 97% consensus about AGW was and is still real. The experts have spoken, the science is settled and the hoi polloi should shut up and take their medicine. And under no circumstances should ‘deniers’ be allowed equal time to foment discontent and disobedience amongst the masses.

It is a vile position and it is this very attitude which informed the attempts by the Gillard government at the behest of Bob Brown to silence dissent about AGW in the form of the Finkelstein Report. Jonathan Green allowed me to argue against this at The Drum. And Graham Young gave me three bites of the cherry at OLO.

Increasingly though Graham has expressed reservations about my articles about AGW. In one conversation he admitted to being sick of defending my obvious errors in my articles. It turns out he was thinking of an article by Viv Forbes which was based on a graph which could have been better:

The graph was from here, a sceptic site. The graph purported to show the declining effect of extra CO2 on temperature; this effect is described by Beers Law which has been neglected by AGW. As usual the AGW supporters focused on the mistake in the graph. Bugsy, a frequent alarmist commentator at OLO, who apparently has some scientific credentials, summed up the ‘problem’:

Perhaps then Graham, you could explain to us how emitted CO2 before 1922 can give an overall cooling effect per ton on temperature, as Viv's first graph seems to imply? 

The problems with the graph were discussed further as the thread continued with Graham making several comments including saying:

  I have no intention of "withdrawing" the graph. It's not my essay, and this is an opinion site, not some refereed journal. There are some issues with the graph, principally the sixth order polynomial, but it has its good points too.

I can only assume that he continues to confuse the problems with this graph in Viv’s article with my articles which had no such problem. If I’m wrong about these mistakes then I invite Graham to spell them out.

But the fact is it doesn’t matter who you are, if you are a sceptic you will be attacked by alarmists. They will censor you, abuse you, nit pick your arguments and avoid any concession or acknowledgment of a problem with AGW. I have seen the best climate scientists in the world be abused and criticised for merely being sceptical; people like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, the Pielkes, junior and senior, Judith Curry, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Stuart Franks and so on have all been subject to approbrium for their scepticism.

So Finkelstein was based on a lie. It is not the lack of qualifications which prompted the alarmists to object to non-qualified people such as myself criticising AGW, it was and still is the act of criticising itself. AGW from day one has relied on suppression of opposing views; the email scandal told us that. AGW can only work that way because the experts of AGW have been consistently wrong and AGW science has been inadequate. What do you do when the experts and science are wrong? If the experts are wrong then the opinion of a non-expert is just as valid.

I am not a scientist. I have co-authored some papers with David Stockwell and written many articles on the science and about AGW. I always go to primary sources and read and research the papers and science. Sometimes I get things wrong but so what? If AGW science was like other science and processed in an open and transparent way the mistakes would be resolved in consequent discussion which is what OLO offers in its comments. AGW science is however not like other science; it is flawed. And because it is flawed its supporters resort to tactics such as exaggeration, lying, bullying, insults and censorship and a lack of transparency.

Andrew Bolt recently suggested the conservative side of politics is losing the argument in the battle with the left and the Greens because the left is passionate, aggressive, furious and full of rage. The conservatives are polite and try to engage the left. It is impossible and the reasonable approach is swamped by the fury.

The ‘debate’ in AGW is the same. I began debating AGW back in 2006 in a calm, reasonable manner and was insulted from pillar to post and called an “idiot” for daring to question my betters. I am not calm any more. I still do the research but I respond to insults with insults and calling a spade a spade. Given that the ‘science’ of AGW is such a mess the views of the AGW experts are worth no more than informed citizens such as myself who are willing to express their opinion about the lie of AGW. If that sounds high-handed too bad

It is a pity that Graham Young has stopped me from doing that on his site. At the very least, as Graham noted, his site is an opinion site, and my opinion is as good as the opinion of any expert.