Tips for Wednesday, September 18 An excellent and measured interview with Chief Scientist Ian Chubb on Lateline last night. No Link or transcript available at this time. I particularly endorse his remarks on the description of AGW as a myth or a religion (The latter by John Howard) that is frequently made on this blog by "skeptics." Like Chubb I reject the term "belief," and endorse his statement that scientists draw conclusions on the basis of evidence and the preponderance of probabilities. I remain a true skeptic, having changed my view on where the preponderance of evidence lay sometime between the release of the third and fourth IPCC reports, and since then the evidence has continued to mount that AGW is real. If and when the preponderance of evidence moves the other way, I am perfectly willing to change my view again. Unlike "skeptics" who have never changed their mind and whose arguments involve attacks on science itself and on the professionalism and integrity of thousands of scientists world-wide. They are the true believers in a "religion." Geoff of the Central Coast replied to Dr Brian Wed 18 Sep 13 (08:49am) Yet, for all your pompous posturing, you still cannot answer the simple questions that I have been asking for 3-1/2 years. Would you like to try this time? The data presented by Pachauri at Jokenhagen showed that global temperatures have risen by a bit over 0.7CÂ° in the 150+ years since the end of the Mini Ice Age. What do you think global temperatures should have done following the three century long Mini Ice Age? Can you tell us how much of this ~0.7CÂ° temperature increase is man-made? Can you provide us with any hard proof that this very small increase in temperature is catastrophic? Hawkeye P. replied to Dr Brian Wed 18 Sep 13 (09:00am) Then you'll be carefully considering this, Brian: ..."The scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth's natural variations of temperature. Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution. Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future. It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true. So who has been telling us these scientific whoppers? Although I personally reserve judgement on the "science," I think the "skeptics" you refer to (snidely, I might add, which is tiresomely typical of this entire so-called "debate") can be entirely forgiven for feeling a little distrusful of their climate scientist "elders and betters." isobar replied to Dr Brian Wed 18 Sep 13 (09:05am) DR B..says sanctimoniously .."endorse his statement,that scientists draw conclusions on the basis of evidence and the preponderance of probabilities." ok so to 3 decimal points you continually re-affirm us that is "no pause in global temps" i say to you,no global thermometers exist,the data you assidously present is fictionlized as they are not measurements..made up numbers. so i ask ,if you cannot present the following -163/1897/1923 afternon max at 90s130e/77s130e/25s130e measurements,then all your carefeull decimalling means diddly poo as there exists no substantial data base,more so in the earliest 50 years..thus the need to use made up no's you pretend have scientific integrity... re-read your intro and please explain your intellectual pomposity. "I remain a true skeptic/ has continued to mount that AGW is real...."? Dr Brian replied to Dr Brian Wed 18 Sep 13 (10:04am) Geoff, proving once again that "skeptics" always feel that their arguments cannot stand alone without the crutch of childish insult. Geoff, there is some evidence that the long term "natural" global temperature trend is still downward. I don't know what the alleged rise in temperature due to the end of the little ice age alone "should" have been, other than to indicate what is understood to have been occuring with and without anthropogenic warming since 1900. And the warming for the last 150 years is closer to 0.9 C I never use the term "proof" in relation to empirical science. I don't like to use the term "catastrophic" in relation to climate change as it is a highly subjective term. But if pressed, I will give the view from my comfortable chair here in Melbourne that AGW has not yet been "catastrophic." Dr Brian replied to Dr Brian Wed 18 Sep 13 (01:29pm) Jim C: Professor Ian William Chubb, AC, MSc, DPhil (Oxford), Hon DSc (Flinders), Hon DLitt (CDU), Hon DUniv (ANU), Hon LLD (Monash) It is the DPhil (Oxford) that is an earned doctorate in the hard sciences (neuroscience). The "Philosophy" in the title as with PhD comes from days of yore. Science used to be known as "Natural Philosphy" But it is not the posession of a doctorate that makes him or anyone else a "real scientist" it is this: He has co-authored some 70 full papers and co-edited one book all related to his research.