Not infrequently contributors say that so-and-so gets funding from an environmental group. This happens on the other side as well, as when oil company funding is mentioned. As a statement of fact, these comments add nothing to climate science.

Instead, such comments imply that certain work should be dismissed before results have a chance to be examined on their own merits. They say that funding sources rather than good science determine veracity, but that hypothesis has never been proven. Nevertheless, these comments demean people irrespective of their behavior.

There is nothing wrong with a scientist hoping she/he is right on an issue. There is nothing wrong with challenging the conventional wisdom when you come up with a new hypothesis and a good experiment to test it. There is nothing wrong with funding agencies underwriting work that ends up solidifying the scientific basis of their positions.

Comments that go beyond explaining the science are a warning signal of a switch from intellectual persuasion to emotional manipulation. No one is above that temptation, but we are all capable of better.

Lots of people have jumped, often with innuendo about me, my thought processes and my relationship to reality, on my honest attempts to convey my point of view without being mean or intolerant. Science doesn't work unless it is based on truth-telling and factual evidence, and is not a faith-based activity. I suspect that quite a number of interested people are put off by a concerted atmosphere of attack. Another tactic I've noticed is jumping on any detail, omission, or error and tearing it to bits. For example, quite a while ago I mentioned hurricane Mitch and was fascinated when I looked up Camilla (I was in California and doing other things at the time); it was quite a storm but the overall picture presented by NOAA confirmed that the frequency of storms has radically increased and confirmed what I had been saying, not the rebuttal I received.

Here's a summary of how to create an apparent majority in the face of the huge majority (close to 100%) of scientists who agree that global warming is 90% likely real and caused by human activity.

"few have the lingo down better than the honorable James Inhofe, senator from Oklahoma. Luntz's advice for dealing with the issue of global warming, which includes the following precepts: (1) emphasize your commitment to "sound science"; (2) seize the remaining "window of opportunity" to challenge and dispute the scientific consensus; and (3) find experts "sympathetic to your view" and make them "part of your message". It's a cunning strategy, provided that you are not ashamed ... and Inhofe doesn't appear to have much shame ... has followed the Luntz memo's recommendation flawlessly ... written response ... fully admitted he'd read it.
".... he has a history of extreme statements, having once dubbed the [EPA] a "gestapo bureaucracy." ... [Inhofe in 2002] got more contributions from the oil, gas, and electric companies - who surely appreciate his repeated challenges to the scientific basis of virtually every environmental problem - than from any other industries."

(taken from "The Republican War on Science" by James Mooney, and why should I be ashamed of being a democrat? if you are, are you ashamed of being a republican?)

Laura,

For what it is worth, the labels that are given to folks who do not agree with the A in AGW impact the level of civility that one should expect with this type of blog. The terms "denier" and even "skeptic" paint those with differing opinions as arguing against fact, when there are those who do not concede AGW as fact. If you want civility, there must be respect shown on both sides of the discussion and it might begin with a renaming of your Skeptic category. Unfortunately, I do not have a suggestion for a replacement, but you get the idea.

Susan Anderson said, "Here's a summary of how to create an apparent majority in the face of the huge majority (close to 100%) of scientists who agree that global warming is 90% likely real and caused by human activity."

86.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot. I believe these stats fall into that category. Both sides of the global warming issue report that "most scientists agree that global warming is/isn't real", yet there's no source I can find where scientists all go to weigh in, so polling can be done.

So maybe you're basing your statistics on the commentary from scientists in news publications. It could be argued that those who believe there is a problem are more likely to voice their concerns than those who don't - conversely, it could be argued that those who wish to debunk what they believe to be junk science are the more vocal group. I don't think it's good scientific method to develop statistical analysis on a potentially non-random sampling. It's like calling registered democrats and finding out what percentage of people support same-sex marriage, and reporting that as "most voters believe...".

And how do biologists weigh into your calculations? What about archaeologists, anthropologists, veterinarians, rocket fuel engineers? Those are all scientists, right? Should one expect those professions, skilled and talented as they are, to have any more insight into global warming than I have?

We simply don't know what "most scientists" believe, and there is no credibility to the statistics you seem to take for granted to be fact.

Virtually 100% of all artists believe that communicating with the dead via a seance is 90% likely real.

Oh, and yes, that "86.4%" figure I threw at at the beginning of this post, was made up on the spot.

Wow, so deniers object to the term 'denier' and even 'skeptic'; yet, they have no problem throwing out words like, say: Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, enviro-wacko, Communist, etc.

Just deal with it.

I'm sure Laura will correct me if I'm mistaken, but I doubt that she's referring to any of the things mentioned on this thread.

Labels like "denier", "Marxist", "Liberal", "Right-winger" and so on are part of heated exchange. We all use them and I hope none of us gets too worked up about them.

My guess is that there is a large and perhaps growing number of comments that Laura does NOT post here, because they are simply offensive. I think we all know the kind of language and hate-speech I mean.

"Emotional manipulation" is, in my view, well within the guidelines cited above. On the other hand, if someone were to, for example, make crude references about body parts, sexual proclivities, ancestry, and similar boorish rubbish, I assume such "contributions" will be summarily discarded.

I suspect that Laura has seen an increase in the latter, hence motivating her to remind us of the above guidelines.

Passions run high in the AGW debate where believer is pitted against non-believer. Enforcing the rules of civil discourse is necessary but often difficult. The fact that some in the true believer camp treat AGW as "settled" science and subject non-believers to all sorts of ridicule and insults is well documented on this blog and in the mainstream media. The non-believers react in kind and honest, intellectual scientific discourse is lost in the melee that ensues.

Some have characterized the AGW "cause" as a religion and it is true there are striking similarities. There is a fascinating article on this which comes from the U.K. and is well worth reading. Perhaps we can better understand uncivilized posts when we understand the AGW movement. Here is the link:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

Buzz--while I agree that this blog could stand a little more civility and humor, I have no problem with being a skeptic of anything. As a matter of fact, Laura should change the Skeptic catagory name to bold all caps. In any business one really needs to be skeptical of any proposal or recommendation until satisfied as to validity. The same is true in science and engineering. The term denier is nonsense and identifies the accuser as a sniveling little prick. Opps-sorry for the uncivil tone there.
So henceforth, guess I'm an "A" SKEPTIC.

Passions run high in the AGW debate where believer is pitted against non-believer. Enforcing the rules of civil discourse is necessary but often difficult. The fact that some in the true believer camp treat AGW as "settled" science and subject non-believers to all sorts of ridicule and insults is well documented on this blog and in the mainstream media. The non-believers react in kind and honest, intellectual scientific discourse is lost in the melee that ensues.

Horse puckey. The scientists treat the science as "settled" because the credible challenges have been offered and addressed. It is settled in the same way that evolution is "settled". There are certainly loud voices clamoring for "debate" -- and they are NOT scientists.

Science is not about "belief", no matter how many times the deniers repeat that canard.

It is important to remember that "honest, intellectual scientific discourse" does not include endlessly refuting the same worn-out challenges.

Regarding the above link, it's just another repetition and elaboration of the above "belief" canard. I note that it comes from a denier, and as such is just another polemic. In fact, there are a number of deniers here who proudly proclaim the religious foundation for their view. I know of no AGW proponent who makes a similar claim.

If someone -- denier or proponent -- is unable to distinguish between "religion" and "science", or between "belief" and "fact", the problem is with that person. I suggest that those who most loudly assert such tripe demonstrate a striking ignorance of either religion or science.

Mark,

Maybe it is just me, but calling people names or labeling people, whether it be "denier" or "communist", is equally sophomoric. Passion on a topic does not have to reveal itself in lumping folks into one category or another. Believe it or not, there are gray areas between the two extremes and those that inhabit those spaces do not lend themselves to convenient labels. Civil discourse requires respect for others opinions and, quite frankly, I don't see that in your entries.

If someone were to analyze the content of posts, they would find that a non-trivial percentage has nothing to do with the technical subject of a particular thread. Obvious implications and even outright charges of dishonesty, mental imbalance, intellectual incompetence, hidden agendas and irrationality abound. Ridicule and contempt are common. It is clear that this is not meant to serve science, but instead casts "the other side" in the worst possible light.

The human object of this vituperation experiences a hostile environment (harassment), unduly harsh characterization (abuse), disgrace (defamation) and can even feel depersonalized (emotional harm). If my objective is to be contemptuous and to render ridicule, then I am engaging in hatred. All of these fall under the Accuweather policy.

We've all read the policy. It's broad, and yet the word "civility" does not appear in it. The policy tells us what wrongdoing to avoid. Civility calls us to go beyond the avoidance of wrong to the higher standard of courtesy, regardless of what "the other side" says.

Real science is only served by dialogue that sticks to straightforward explanations and scrupulously avoids pejoratives.

To bad the civility thing doesn't seem to apply to NASAs Jim Hansen too.

Real science is only served by dialogue that sticks to straightforward explanations and scrupulously avoids pejoratives.

The fundamental constraint on dialog that serves real science is an iron-willed rejection of statements that are demonstrably false. A corollary is that hypotheses be falsifiable.

I don't know how much time ClaudeC has spent in dialog with "real" scientists. I can assure you, from first-hand experience, that dialog among the scientists at the Whitehead Institute, the Broad Institute, research labs at Novartis, research labs at Aventis, and the similar array of research facilities in the Boston area is quite frequently full of "pejoratives" -- most frequently, pejoratives aimed at statements that are alleged to be false, misinformed, or not falsifiable. That dialog is nearly always lively and seldomly involves "straightforward explanations." Perhaps others conclude, therefore, that the participants in such dialogs aren't doing "real science." As far as I'm concerned, those facilities are about as real as science gets in the 21st century.

The issue for this forum, spelled out fairly clearly by Fehlinger in our exchanges about her pieces, is that this forum exists to attract an audience. The more the acrimony, the bigger the audience. The science of AGW is comparable to the science of evolution -- lots of "dialog", and virtually none of it scientific. This is because, in both domains, the science is done. If Laura applied the standards for dialog that serves real science, there would be no dialog and no forum.

The "real science" is decided, folks.

BT,

AGW science is likened to Intelligent Design not Evolution. In Evolution there are millions of observations and hundreds of experiments that are repeatable that can be made to support that theory. AGW only has models and correlations to support it. If you look at the last couple hundred years one might think the End is Near, however looking at hundreds of thousands of years we see this is completely normal and CO2 is not the problem as many of you suspect. I repeat, show me some experiments that support your ideas. That's all I ask, but there are none, you all keep mouthing that same old stuff with nothing to support it other than wild predictions that do not come true and wild extrapolations that when they do not come true you all will make up some reason and go on to the next wild fantasy.

I just want to see ONE experiment showing CO2's role in GW. No one has one. Heck, Laura can't find me one either. Put up or shut up. I say the Milankovitch Cycle shows why it is warming. Please falsify that one for me.

Thanks,

Steve

BT:

The "real science" is decided, folks.

HA HA HA

Are you serious? Or just trying to get a rise out of people? Talk about creating acrimony. Your comments about squelching debate are something that only totalitarian authorities do. Makes me wonder about the intent.

You know, as I recall, the real science was settled in the 70's regarding a little cold thing, the science was settled over SARS, and the bird flu, and west nile virus, and AIDS, and what to do in a Tornado, and how much oil was on the planet, and the amount of WMD in Iraq, and how many people could live on the planet, and how high a building could be, and how fast a computer could be, and on, and on, and on....

I would like to thank you for finally stating the indelible fact that since the "science" is decided, we can finally forget about this topic just like all of these others.

Phew, that was close.

Steve, thanks for making my case for me.

Your demand for "ONE experiment showing CO2's role in GW" is precisely analogous to the creationist demand for one example of macroevolution. Each demand is followed by the spurious claim that "No one has one". Each is then followed by an assertion of personal belief. If, in fact, you really want answers to these, then the scientific literature is open to you. Your assertion about the Milankovitch Cycle has been addressed over and over, and is readily addressed. Here's what NOAA has to say, for example:
In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.(emphasis mine)

Now, of course, you can find all sorts of pseudo-scientific claptrap like that promoted by Lyndon LaRouche and his ilk. Just like you can find similar pseudo-scientific claptrap about "macroevolution" promoted by the creationist crowd. Sadly, too many lay people today lack the education in the ways of science to dismiss this for the rubbish it is. Hence, the "dialog" continues.

Whatever this dialog is, it isn't science.

It appears that there are at least 3 arguments for the use of acrimony. This in itself is a step in the right direction in that persons of acrimony acknowledge, at least implicitly, that its use must not be arbitrary, but must be subject to rationale and justifiable grounds.

1) Everybody does it.
On the basis of this argument some unsuccessfully tried to justify slavery in the 19th century, but then the abolitionists came along. The �everybody does it� argument is never correct because the human race never reaches consensus on absolutely everything, especially anything substantive, such as the issue of slavery. The argument is incorrect in this specific case because not everyone is a person of acrimony.

2) Acrimony is essential to the correct resolution of the issue.
Simultaneously it is asserted that the issue is decided. But if the issue is truly decided this begs the question of why acrimony continues. If acrimony is essential to the correct resolution of the issue and acrimony continues, then by the reasoning of the proponents of this belief set the issue really isn�t decided in their minds. However, a cessation of acrimony would be consistent with, though not prove, the proposition that the issue is decided.

3) This site will disappear if acrimony disappears.
There is a high degree of certainty that were all acrimony to disappear most participants would continue to show up and discussion would continue. Were participants willing to test this hypothesis they would be answering Laura�s call to civility.

Sometimes, when you're up to your butt in alligators, it's difficult to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp.

Claude, I share your enthusiasm for continuing dialog without acrimony. It seems to me that the question is what we -- and more specifically, Laura -- should do when acrimony creeps in despite our best efforts to avoid it. I suggest that we tolerate it and move on.

I further suggest that any dialog intended to advance "real science" presupposes a shared rejection of statements that have already been shown false and a shared rejection of hypotheses that have already been shown to be unsupported by evidence, unless new data or theory accompanies those statements and hypotheses.

Let me pose a hypothetical -- I'm sure you can make the analogy. There are a fair number of self-proclaimed "scientists" who proclaim that God created life on Earth and that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Suppose there were a forum whose stated purpose was a "balanced" and "objective" discussion of the science of the origins of life. Suppose these creationist "scientists" repeatedly presented the same handful of arguments and claims, even though each has been thoroughly and effectively rebutted -- both in the literature and the forum in question -- multiple times. The truth is that unless the forum rejects -- with as much civility as possible, but not more so -- this kind of assault, then the original purpose of the forum is itself destroyed.

The very limited influence of "Milankovitch Cycles" on the phenomena we call AGW has been widely documented. I invite ClaudeC to rate the above post by Steve for "civility", along with my response to it. I also invite ClaudeC's response to the same post.

"however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases"

And exactly where does climate science start and weather forecasting begin? On the one hand, climate scientists rightly point out that weather and climate are two different things. Yet, that doesn't prevent climate scientists from using synoptic weather events to justify thier theories (ie North Atlantic Tropical Storms, droughts, etc...). It use to be that climate scientists were interested in mainly century to century events; now it is down to decades -soon it will be seasonal.

This cherry picking of seasonal or yearly events to justify thier theories indicates that climate scientists want it both ways. The drought in the Southeast is due to serious changes in long term climate due to human activity, while unseasonal snowfall in the Northern Rockies and Northern High Plains is just short term "weather" variability.

And exactly where does climate science start and weather forecasting begin?

An excellent question. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex answer, I'd like to suggest that this is tantamount to asking where an initial-condition problem overlaps a boundary-condition problem.

In a perfect world with a well-behaved problem (such as a system of linear differential equations with constant coefficients), the two approaches yield equivalent answers and the question is moot.

In the real world, I think the answer depends to a great extent on how a particular argument is justified. Further, I suggest that it isn't just the climatologists who want it both ways.

It seems to me that the boundary-condition approach yields a prediction that an increase in overall atmospheric heat content will drive an increase in changes to historic weather patterns. While no particular event validates or invalidates this prediction, a larger collection of events at least merits additional inquiry.

Your mileage may vary.

AGW for DUMMIES

Suppose a "balanced" and "objectively rebutted -- both in the question. At the real world with "constant coefficientists" repeated life. Suppose these createdly presented the forum whose stated purpose these creationist "science of the risk of overlaps" created a boundary-conditional inquiry.

Let me pose these creations with constant coefficientists" repeatedly presented the real world with as much civility as possible, but not more so -- this prediction, a larg