The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5) by ScottishSceptic - examined by CC

{edited for grammatical errors and to add a couple more links.  Thursday am}

This post will be reviewing 
ScottishSceptic's 
"The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5)"

http://scef.org.uk/index.php/climate/the-sceptic-view

Which is a statement prepared by Mike Haseler with the help of… {update - ScottishSceptic tells me that Anthony Watts and Bishop Hill were not directly involved in producing his list.  As for Morano, that was just a wild suspicion (can we examine SS's emails to be sure?).  In any event, I stand corrected… at least til superseding information becomes available.  Sort of like how science works ;-) }.  

They say it "represents the most authoritative statement of the views of Climate "Sceptics"/"Skeptics" as of May 2012."

{update - It appears Mr. ScottishSceptic has taken umbrage at this review of his "copyrighted" list - he thinks it's sacred and shouldn't be questioned or exposed for the fraud that it is.

  Now he wants to sue me.  

As Steven told Yoko, Sosumi ;- }

As such it should make an informative read.  But before ScottishSceptic gets to the list itself he does something strange.  Not sure if it's intended to prime his uncritical audience or be a red flag for rational skeptics.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Scot writes: Sceptics value diversity of views and there are many strands. As one contributor said:

"Climate scepticism isn’t necessarily about what we agree upon, it’s based upon how many questions go unanswered. More, it’s about how many lies that have been told, whether directly or by omission. The greatest liberator of mankind so far – fossil fuel – has been tried, found guilty and condemned without ever being allowed to publicly mount a defence. (TinyCO2 )"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

To begin with, are you really unaware of the damages too much of a good thing can inflict?  And what's with the sympathy play?  Aren't we supposed to be learning about objective Earth science, instead of playing Walt Disney? 

So, "TinyCO2" is angry because "fossil fuels are what liberated mankind so far."  Curious, but telling, caveat - "so far".

What does that true fact have to do with the other true fact that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas with clearly understood properties. (learn about it here)

As for "publicly mounting a defense for CO2" - "TinyCO2" ignores the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent on right-wing think-tanks, oil company advertising, lobbying and purchasing politicians.  To claim CO2 has had no defense is another denial of well known facts and history.  

Another example of their acceptance of THE LIE as a tactical tool.

~ ~ ~

NOT JUST THE KOCH BROTHERS: NEW DREXEL STUDY REVEALS FUNDERS BEHIND THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL EFFORTPHILADELPHIA, December 20, 2013 

http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/ 

- - -  

Organizations listed in the Exxonsecrets database 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Organisations_listed_in_the_Exxonsecrets_database 

- - - 

Start Your Own Research 

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php 

- - - 

FACTSHEET: COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, CEI 

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Scot writes: Many have passionate views based on the evidence:

"As far as I’m concerned I see absolutely no unambiguous empirical evidence that CO2 has any discernible effect on climate whatsoever. It may possibly have an influence but I’m damned if I see it anywhere." (cerberus)

~ ~ ~ 

  

Hmmm, the mythical three headed guard-dog can't possibly discern any CO2 effect on climate whatsoever?  Well, what can you expect from a guard-dog - an argument from ignorance.  

You need to get an education and learn about all sorts of complicated atmospheric science and higher math before you can hope to personally understand the details of what's going on in our atmosphere.  That's why we need the experts who have dedicated their lives to studying it.

A rational skeptic would have asked themselves, is there any evidence that I've missed?  Then pursue that evidence to it's conclusion.  

As for understanding what CO2 is doing and why scientists are concerned about CO2's radiative properties in our atmosphere.  Here's a start - look into it and see if you got the chops for it:

Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect 

A series providing more explanation of how the atmosphere absorbs and emits radiation, including a simple model to provide insight. The model uses fictitious molecules pH2O and pCO2 (which have only a passing resemblance to the real molecules) to demonstrate some key points. Part Six even explains the real equations used. 

http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

~ ~ ~

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

"Who says CO2 heats things up?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoR4ezwKh5E

~ ~ ~

To summarize ignoring evidence that is available has nothing to do with rational "skepticism" nor with Scotty's reasonable "**" that he shares at the end.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Scot writes: Although there is no single sceptic view, most** sceptics broadly agree with the following:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has been increasing. In 1960 it was 0.032% of the atmosphere, today it is 0.039%.

~ ~ ~ 

What We Knew When 

http://co2now.org/Know-CO2/The-Need-to-Know-CO2/what-we-knew-when.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

     

Scot writes: There has very probably been warming of average global temperatures in the last 150 years.

~ ~ ~ 

And the industrial revolution started two-hundred and fifty years ago... your point is?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Scot writes: There is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The best scientific estimate of this effect (for doubling CO2) is about 1C warming.

~ ~ ~ 

Really now? How do you figure that?  Here's the best scientific estimate of climate sensitivity in the real world:

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values." 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

And here's the 2013 version 

E.1 Atmosphere: Temperature 

Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8} 

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/09/ipcc-report-highlights-summary-for.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hey, check it out, 

I was just at the IPCC website 

and they've updated it to reflect the 2013 report:

http://www.ipcc.ch 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Scotty might be referring to a study a couple years ago.  Turned out to be highly flawed, it was produced by Hermann Harde a laser spectroscopist, who forgot that one has to understand the atmosphere, before one can attempt to seriously model sun / greenhouse gas dynamics. Rather than checking his own work for mistakes, Harde claimed all the experts were wrong and the true values were seven times smaller than the consensus.  Anthony Watt and friends loved the man for it.  

For a detailed explanation of Harde's mistakes see:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/03/toy-model.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Scot writes: People think there are mechanisms that could increase warming further than the direct effect of CO2. This is not supported by the evidence.

~ ~ ~ 

WRONG, another example of refusing to look at the evidence.

Guy McPherson lists 19 evidence based feedback loops: 
This essay updates my earlier effort to tally and describe self-reinforcing feedback loops with respect to climate change. At that time, seven months ago, we had strong evidence of nine such catastrophic phenomena. The nineteen I currently know about are described below. -  

http://transitionvoice.com/2013/08/19-ways-climate-change-is-now-feeding-itself/

~ ~ ~ 

http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/nasa-discovers-brand-new-global-warming-feedback-loop.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

   

Scot writes: Current estimates of about 0.8 C temperature rise in the past 150 years are very likely too high.  There is compelling evidence of malpractice, urban heating and poor instruments & siting. A figure of 0.5-0.6C warming appears more likely.

~ ~ ~ 

"Compelling evidence"  WHERE !?  

Perhaps if you start from the position that every authoritative source is lying to us, and that the likes of Anthony Watts and pals can be trusted on faith.  However, there have been serious papers written on those allegations and they refute Anthony's conviction using his own collected data. 

~ ~ ~ 

For example, regarding urban heat island and poor instruments & siting - but does Anthony acknowledge it and learn from it?

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record 

Menne, Williams, and Palecki 

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf 

Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. 

Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. 

These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. 

Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
~ ~ ~ 

Urban Heat Islands and U.S. Temperature Trends

Guest Commentary by Zeke Hausfather and Matthew Menne (NOAA) - 2/13/13  

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/urban-heat-islands-and-u-s-temperature-trends/ 

~ ~ ~ 

Urban Heat Island Myth is Dead - 
Mitchell Anderson - 1/21/2010 

http://desmogblog.com/urban-heat-island-myth-dead 

~ ~ ~ 

Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends? 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm 

~ ~ ~ 

Stanford Report, October 19, 2011 

Urban 'heat island' effect is only a small contributor to global warming 

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/october/urban-heat-islands-101911.html

~ ~ ~ 

       

Another proof that Scotty is blowing smoke is his willfully ignoring the thermometer-independent, real-time proxies for global temperatures that do exist.  They corroborate what the gauges are reflecting.

USDA Unveils New Plant Hardiness Zone Map 

By Kim Kaplan   |  January 25, 2012 

Compared to the 1990 version, zone boundaries in this edition of the map have shifted in many areas. The new map is generally one 5-degree Fahrenheit half-zone warmer than the previous map throughout much of the United States.  

This is mostly a result of using temperature data from a longer and more recent time period; the new map uses data measured at weather stations during the 30-year period 1976-2005. In contrast, the 1990 map was based on temperature data from only a 13-year period of 1974-1986. ... 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/zonemap/zonemap.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

    

Scot writes: Man-made sources have increased global levels of CO2, however scientific analysis shows part of the increase is natural and no one is certain how much or little of this rise is man-made.

~ ~ ~ 

Be interesting to find out if Scotty can support this claim with any science.  A slight increase in natural CO2 output doesn't let humanity off the hook.  Besides, could well be that the suggested increase in natural output is related to all the anthropogenic CO2 we have been injecting into our atmosphere. 

"There are many lines of evidence which clearly show that the atmospheric CO2increase is caused by humans.  The clearest of these is simple accounting - humans are emitting CO2 at a rate twice as fast as the atmospheric increase (natural sinks are absorbing the other half).  There is no question whatsoever that the CO2 increase is human-caused.  This is settled science."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm 

- - - 

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming? 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html 

- - - 

How do we know humans cause global warming? 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused 

- - - 

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Scot writes: Water in the atmosphere is far more important than CO2 in determining global temperature. 

~ ~ ~ 

       

Here's another typical trick intent on confusing innocents rather than enlightening. While it is true that water is a more potent greenhouse gas - CO2 regulates how much moisture the atmosphere can hold !

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm 

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time. 

Water Vapour as a positive feedback . . .

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

    

Scot writes: The harmful effects of warming have been exaggerated as shown e.g.  by the absence of substantial evidence for increasing weather extremes.

~ ~ ~ 

Scotty, how old is the news you are relying on.  Got any studies to share?  

A rational skeptic would want to investigate, particularly considering this past decade's steady flow of increasingly extreme weather events - super cyclones and storm systems, on top of extreme heat waves and drought, punctuated by an increasingly weird jet stream and all the baggage that brings with it. 

Where's the information that supports your "skeptical" supposition?  I'll show you mine, if you show me yours!

New analyses find evidence of human-caused climate change in half of the 12 extreme weather and climate events analyzed from 2012 (9/5/13) 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130905-extremeweatherandclimateevents.html 

Human influences are having an impact on some extreme weather and climate events, according to the report “Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective” released today by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Overall, 18 different research teams from around the world contributed to the peer-reviewed report that examined the causes of 12 extreme events that occurred on five continents and in the Arctic during 2012. Scientists from NOAA served as three of the four lead editors on the report. 

~ ~ ~ 

Current Extreme Weather & Climate Change 

http://www.climatecommunication.org/new/articles/extreme-weather/overview/ 

Climate Communication hosted a press conference featuring our expert reviewers discussing the connections between extreme weather and climate change. The full audio recording of the conference can be downloaded here: 9/7/11 Climate Communication Press Conference. 

- - - 
Is extreme weather caused by global warming?
A look at recent scientific studies. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm 

- - -  

Extreme Weather
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/extreme.asp 

- - -  

Extreme weather of last decade part of larger pattern linked to global warming
March 25, 2012 | Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120325173206.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Scot writes: Known benefits have been hidden. It is estimated there are more than 20,000 extra winter deaths each year in the UK and increasing fuel costs will make this worse. CO2 is essential for plant growth and increasing levels are beneficial to plants.

~ ~ ~ 

"Known benefits have been hidden" - oh dear, check out the tactic Scotty's got going now - the infamous Gish Gallop.

He sounds like a Hollywood Movie: Never mind that the city got destroyed, a great evening was had by the stars and sidekicks.  

Winter kills people, heating fuel costs and plants use CO2.

This tactic is all about distraction and is intended to get everyone to ignore the other side - extreme temperatures and droughts kill, torrential downpours and floods kill, as do extreme wind storm events.  Heating fuel costs, and a power plant can not operate without lots of cooling water.  Plants use CO2, weeds especially love it.

Setting the Record Straight: More than 52,000 Europeans Died from Heat in Summer 2003 

Janet Larsen  |  JULY 28, 2006 

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update56 

- - - 

Weeds From Hell in a Greenhouse World 

By Michael D. Lemonick | June 1st, 2011 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/weeds-from-hell-in-a-greenhouse-world/ 

- - -  

Strong response of an invasive plant species (Centaurea solstitialis L.) to global environmental changes 

Dukes, Chiariello, Loarie,  and Field  

Global environmental changes are altering interactions among plant species, sometimes favoring invasive species. Here, we examine how a suite of five environmental factors, singly and in combination, can affect the success of a highly invasive plant. 

- - - 

INCREASED CO2 LEVELS ARE MIXED BLESSING FOR AGRICULTURE 

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm

- - - 

more on the tactic known as the "GISH GALLOP" 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-Gish-Gallop-of-epic-proportions.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Scot writes: Even under the worst case scenario warming, when the usual method of comparing the cost and benefit of policy is used, it is more cost effective to deal with any problems that occur than to pay to try to stop them.

~ ~ ~ 

Scotty, do you even know what the worst case scenario's are?  Here is a report from a conservative source, the World Bank, and it's not the worst case scenario, but plenty hideous just the same.

New Report Examines Risks of 4 Degree Hotter World by End of Century 

November 18, 2012 

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2012/11/18/new-report-examines-risks-of-degree-hotter-world-by-end-of-century

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Scot writes: Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence suggests the world was warmer during the “medieval warm period” as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.

~ ~ ~ 

Scotty, once again you are lost in the 90s, what's up with that - don't you appreciate that the decades do fly by.  Which is exactly why we should be taking all this much more seriously that making jokes, then slamming minds shut.

Besides, using the MWP/LIA totally missed the basics of today's situation.  

Today's problem isn't internal variability such as increased solar insolation (it's actually down a little these days), volcanic eruptions or lack there of, ocean circulation patterns and such, heck in deep-time continental drift impacted climate change.  

But, we are living in today, and we know that we have dramatically increased greenhouse levels - bottom line, why must you insist on hiding from these basic established facts?

~ ~ ~

CO2 Increase over time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ve7LrT4beY

It's get particularly interesting after 2 minutes

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Scot writes: Climate varies naturally. Most of the CO2 rise occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. If this change were man-made the global temperature change for the early and latter 20th century should be very different. They are not. This suggests a natural cause for much of the 20th century warming.

~ ~ ~ 

Check it out: "Most of the CO2 rise occurred in the latter half of the 20th century" followed by "If this change were man-made" 

In other words Scotty doesn't even accept the evidence that humans are responsible for the rise in GHGs… that's not skepticism that's contrarianism!

Instead he wants us to blame some as yet to be discovered natural something - so that we can all ignore all that we do know about greenhouse gases.  This is plain crazy-making.

As for the temperature trend, you continue pretending the oceans are not part of the climate system and that they aren't collecting a lot of that heat that isn't being reflected in the surface temperatures.  

The bigger trick Scotty plays, is expecting projections to exactly match recorded temps.  Setting up impossible expectations.  Progressing in life is a matter of doing the best we can with the information at hand.  

Quite often close is all we can hope for - and we'd better make due with it.  Particularly since we've already lost decades of irreplaceable precious time to confront the situation we have created for ourselves.

- - -
What has global warming done since 1998? 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm 

- - - 

Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010? 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

   

Scot writes: In 2001 the IPCC stated with a high degree of confidence that global temperature would warm. It has not. In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it. Climate scientists must accept this theory is not validated and acknowledge that the IPCC confidence in warming was greatly overstated.

~ ~ ~ 

Another absolute gross lie in this one is.  
Global temperatures have warmed!

The Scotty needs to ignore huge amounts of evidence to maintain this stance.

And it's exactly that base contempt for the truth and willingness to ignore valid observations and basic facts that I want to highlight in this effort.

Scotty, isn't a skeptic supposed to examine all sides? . . . no talk of known radiative properties, no talk of circulation patterns, no talk of anything but that you won't accept the work of genuine climatologists.

- - - 

Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/ 

- - - 

Has global warming stopped? 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/has-global-warming-stopped/ 

- - - 

Global Warming has Not Stopped 

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/global-warming-has-not-stopped/21199576

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

      

Scot writes: We condemn the many instances of malpractice seen in climate science and those who condone them.

~ ~ ~

In discussions at his website, Scotty can spit out the names of a bunch of faux scandals, but he never offers any solid information or evidence of actual wrong doing.  

Without evidence it all adds up to malicious rumor mongering - the stuff of political dirty-tricks.

What I condemn is the practice of fake skeptics who's skepticism points in only one direction.  I denounce the lazy dogmatic skeptic who's self interest or attachment to political/economic goals allows them to endlessly repeat lies that have been repeatedly revealed to be lies.  

An objective look through the sources I've offered, will provide plenty of evidence and reason to trust the global climatological community over profit fixated contrarians.

================================

Scot writes: 

Explanatory note

**We encourage debate based on scientific evidence. We particularly abhor any dismissal of potentially good science based on the preconceived prejudice that has dominated climate science and prevented debate. 

- - -

The words sound great, but like George Orwell pointed out, 

words are easily manipulated.  Rhetoric over Substance.

In practice Scotty dismisses and ignores loads of good science.

Furthermore, he lies about how the understanding of our climate has evolved, because any objective review of the process, shows that there has been a great deal of debate and constructive (and at times not so constructive) skepticism within the scientific community and the history of climate science.  I know, I've been listening to this story for over four decades.

- - - 

Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition  

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/

- - - 

The Discovery of Global Warming 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

- - -

To highlight this, the best these "skeptics" have been able to do is tout stolen personal (off-the-record) emails.  These were trimmed quotes out of thousands of emails.  As if scientists aren't supposed to have a human side.  Of course, "skeptics" will never talk about the incredible harassment these scientist were being subjected to - nor the fact that in real life, no scientific papers were ignored in the actual process. 

All of the varied contrarian studies and challenges have been looked at by scientists and dismissed with explanation… but the sceptics of the world proactively ignore all the information that doesn't fit into their bias.

I doubt Scotty will be interested, but in the hope that some objective folks are looking in and curious, here's a link to a thoughtful letter from Ben Santer... yes I imagine one of the "enemies" on Scotty's list, no matter that he is highly respected by his peers.

- - -  

Ben Santer Savages the CRU Email Thieves 

http://www.desmogblog.com/ben-santer-savages-cru-email-thieves 

- - -  

Climategate: Impeding Information Requests? 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-freedom-of-information.html 

 - - -  

Discovered and revealed! - Where the climate codes and data have been hiding

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/07/discovered-and-revealed-where-climate.html

- - -  

Or as Gavin Schmidt has pointed out: 
"I know of no scientist that has declared that 'because' a paper is peer reviewed, it is therefore immune from criticism or that it has been shown to be perfect. Indeed, scientists criticize peer reviewed publications all the time (even occasionally those that appear in Nature!). 

Peer review is not a 'gold standard', it is merely the first stage filter of ideas and results. It is necessary, but in no way sufficient. 

Far from hiding this concept, scientists (myself included) have often emphasized just that – e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/ thus to argue that the response to the emails was because scientists have not been upfront about the limitations of peer review is a mistake. 

It may well be that the public holds these ideas quite strongly (and perhaps some journalists do to), but that is unfortunately part and parcel of the overall lack of appreciation of what it is that scientists actually do."

Scottishsceptic, 

can you produce examples of this "good science" that you feel has been unjustifiably ignored?  Can you do that for us?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

     

Scot writes: Those who did not agree with the above seemed to do so for the following reasons:

Some sceptics reject any interpretation of the data beyond a minimal assertion of the facts.

~ ~ ~

Great!  And some people believe if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it - that it doesn't make a noise.  This is a disingenuous joke. 

What good is data if you can't interpret it and use it to learn from and understand something new?  It's another example of crazy-making.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

     

Scot writes: Others question the validity of isolated surface stations as representing a global temperature.

~ ~ ~

Fine and some people actually believe we live on a flat Earth.  Even more tragic some people believe this universe was created in 6 days, 6 thousand years ago.

Sampling is used throughout science and industry - to pretend it's not understood or invalid is foolishness, and disconnected from the real world of human affairs.  

Denying the validity of sampling is simply more crazy-making.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

      

Scot writes: A vocal group of sceptics look to other planets as a model of the earth’s climate and argue that the temperatures seen on these planet contradict the theory on which greenhouse warming is based. We think such ideas and theories deserve consideration and require effort to substantiate or refute them based on the evidence.

~ ~ ~

Fine, and you should be aware that science does consider those other conjectures and theories. {http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php}  
Where are your studies and evidence?

Studies by contrarians do receive serious review; but if a study is fatally flawed; and scientists can describe those flaws and failures; then ya gotta go back to the drawing board and try harder to get a grip on the science.  

The cheaters approach is to assume everyone else is out to get them, they blame everyone and everything for their own failures and never exercise any self-skepticism.

Dr. Lindzen's a great example of that.  Refusing the most basic self-examination - instead suggesting it's the whole community of scientists who are in on a conspiracy - well that or else, he implies they are a bunch of blind followers.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Well Mr. Haseler, 
that's my review of your points, your response will reflect on what kind of skeptic you actually are.  I welcome your critique of the comments and the scientific information I linked to.