I left a few comments at http://climatesight.org/2010/10/11/what-ben-santer-has-to%c2%a0say/
At first read, it appeared that Ben Santer was the author, but it appears the author is Kate who describes herself as follows:
Kate is a B.Sc. student and aspiring climatologist from the Canadian Prairies.
She became interested in climate science several years ago, and increasingly began to notice the discrepancies between scientific and public knowledge on climate change. She started writing this blog simply to keep herself sane, but she hopes she’ll be able to spread accurate information far and wide while she does so.
Kate recently joined Skeptical Science, a collaborative effort to organize rebuttals to common climate change misconceptions, as an author.
Being a BSc student is a great qualification for adjudicating the true from the false when it comes to climate change! Not!
What Kate has yet to learn about science, is that in order to arrive at the truth, which is what science is all about, you have to be prepared to accept dissenting views and evidence and consider them carefully. It is no use having some sort of belief, and then ignoring and rejecting evidence that challenges that view.
When I first left a comment at Kate’s site she simply spammed it, citing that I should at least produce some evidence that there was no proof, empirical or otherwise for the existance of Anthropogenic cause Global Warming.
Quite hard to produce proof for a negative it is true, but there are plenty of papers which chip away at all the IPCC’s assertions.
As Kate has recently become a member of Skeptical Science she has also caught the disease that they have. Accept only views that support your own spam all others if you cannot successfully contradict them.
I hasten to add that this is not at all an unusual response from people who treat “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” as their religion. It must be painful to hear of facts that contradict your beliefs.
Well Kate, my readers will see that by not addressing perfectly polite questions that make you so uncomfortable that you need to spam them rather than answer them, that you are actually supporting the rapidly growing notion among the people of the world, that we are being conned over Global Warming.
Not by scientists I hasten to add, but by commentators such as yourself who ignore the real science and want to force their views on the world irrespective of any truth.
As I mentioned in one of my comments which you spammed, you will never be a scientist if you ignore facts that contradict your current hypothesis. Being a scientist is about welcoming contradiction and dealing with it in a rational way until the truth and fact is found.
My first comment:-
October 25, 2010 @ 3:31 am
[citations needed – there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change]
My second Comment, fulfilling her request for citations.
“How do we repair public understanding of a scientific issue that many perceive as a purely political one?”
There is no empirical evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming therefore it is fitting that the issue remains a political one.
I stand by this statement, even though you do not agree.
I think your action in trashing my previous comment was quite unjustified, and in fact if you believe there is empirical evidence, or even evidence that goes beyond some spurious correlations, then it is your duty to produce this evidence – because you are the one making the assertion.
I think there is no evidence because I have spent the last year searching for it. That does not mean there is no evidence, only that I have not found it, therefore if you know something that I do not know, it is fitting that you share it with me and our readers.
Obviously I cannot give you any citations on a negative.
However here are some scientific peer reviewed research papers that pull apart all of the things we are told by the IPCC. If there is a particular point that you wish to see examined, I can very likely show you a scientific peer reviewed, published paper refuting what the IPCC says. You may be shocked to find such scientific papers exist. This is because of poor reporting by many jounalists and their editors.
The science is not settled, perhaps now you will see how and why.
An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney
An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
– Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
– Roy Clark
A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
– William Kininmonth
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
– Robert C. Balling Jr.
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle
An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
– Sherwood B. Idso
An upper limit to global surface air temperature
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
– Sherwood B. Idso
As well as the above, there are serious questions about the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis which do not need a scientific paper to see or understand. All that is needed is a reasonable mind.
Some of these are illustrated and explained in my blog.
As your reply to this comment is of some interest to my readers (as well as yours), I have posted this comment and will post your expected reply on my other site http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com
The result of this polite comment is reproduced below.
October 26, 2010 @ 2:48 am
There is no point addressing nasty comments to Ben Santer. He does not have anything to do with moderation. It’s all me. -Kate
Tags: AGW, Al Gore, alarmist, Anthropogenic, Anthropogenic Climate Change, bombarded by porkies, Climate Change, contrarian, Denialist, denier, Emissions Trading Scheme, ethics, ETS, Global cooling, Global Warming or is it global cooling, Hasn't Anybody Heard of the Medieval Warm Period?, Medieval Warm Period, Ocean Levels Rising, pachauri, porkies, religion, UN World Government, Unbeliever, unscientific