Equally, when someone produces evidence that goes against the grain of AGW, the alarmists' argument goes along the lines of "well, that person isn't a climate scientist: he's a chemist/physicist/biologist/statistician, etc. [delete as appropriate]."
To which, of course, I reply that the first reference to a degree in climatology that I can find is in 2001*, so it's doubtful that any of their heroes are accredited climatologists either.
But what they really mean is that "these guys are scientists: they can think and join together the evidence, y'all.**"
So, courtesy of Bishop Hill, here's how climate scientists really think.
Most of the scientists responsible for creating the delusion still believe global warming is man-made and will be a crisis. We know this from an international survey conducted in 2008 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. They surveyed 373 scientists who work for climate research institutes and appear in the climate journals that are controlled by the now-notorious Climategate gang.
Thirty-five percent responded “very much” when asked the following question: “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?” On a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being “not at all” and 7 being “very much,” 83 percent answered 5, 6, or 7. Only 1 percent said “not at all” and only 11 percent answered 1, 2, or 3. Answers to the question “How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?” were similar.
Pretty scary, huh? I mean, all of these scientists are convinced that man-made climate change—not just any old, run-of-the-mill natural climate change: man-made climate change—is going to kill us all.
OK? Have you absorbed that? It's pretty crucial.
"What?" I hear you cry. "Are you changing your mind, Devil?" Hold on, hold on...
However, the Bray and von Storch survey also reveals that very few of these scientists trust climate models—which form the basis of claims that human activity could have a dangerous effect on the global climate. Fewer than 3 or 4 percent said they “strongly agree” that computer models produce reliable predictions of future temperatures, precipitation, or other weather events. More scientists rated climate models “very poor” than “very good” on a long list of important matters, including the ability to model temperatures, precipitation, sea level, and extreme weather events.
Is that an anti-climax? Sorry. It's not meant to be. Let's explain...
The reliability of climate models is important because actual global temperature records show very little warming or changes in long-term weather events — such as the frequency or severity of hurricanes — that could be attributed to human activity.
Computer models are practically the only “proof” that global warming alarmists have to support their theory and forecasts. How can scientists know that global warming is man-made and will be a crisis, while at the same time express deep skepticism towards the computer models that might support such beliefs?
The answer is that they don’t actually “know” global warming is man-made or will be a disaster; they “believe” this to be true.
In other words, these climatologists have answered a survey that illustrates that they are full of shit. Don't believe me? Try answering these questions...
- Do you believe that man-made global warming is going to kill us all?
- As a scientist, you will know that the only evidence that man-made global warming is going to kill us all comes from computer climate models.
Do you believe that climate models are totally shit and not worth the code they are written in (do feel free to answer with reference to the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file)?
If you have answered "yes" to the both of these questions, you are either a moron or a liar. In which case, the only thing that can be verified is that you are a climate scientist.
To win your prize, please enter the actual subject of your degree into the box below.
In the meantime, as we labour under the terrible heat of the midday sun [Is this right?—Ed.], here's news of a paper showing that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has not risen over the last 150 years.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
Which would rather scupper the proposition that rising temperatures are caused by the rising proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.
It might be prudent to start asking what qualifications these climate scientists actually have: it seems that they cannot have a degree in climatology and they certainly do not seem to have any kind of ability—let alone degree—in anything approaching logical thinking.
I tell you what: let's ask them about the dead people instead...
* If anyone can find me a link to the earliest verified Climatology degree, I'd be grateful.
** Blame my wife.
UPDATE: As a commenter here pointed out, my interpretation of what this paper shows is incorrect.
He's not talking about 'the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere', he's talking about the the proportion of CO2 that ends up in the atmosphere as opposed to being sequestered in the oceans or land biota. His conclusion is that although some studies have suggested otherwise, these sinks are in fact behaving linearly even as CO2 quantities increase.
This is indeed a problem for some of the more pessimistic models of 'climate change' but it has fuck all to do with the 'proposition that rising temperatures are caused by the rising proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.'
Left Outside takes me to task in a rather less kind way, labelling your humble Devil his Climate Fuckwit of the Day. That'll teach me to cite papers that I haven't read, eh?
Mind you, I notice that Left Outside does not address any of the main part of the above post, i.e. the lack of faith that climatologists have in climate models and, indeed, the lack of logical thinking amongst those self-same climatologists.
Given that, would it be inappropriate to nominate Left Outside as my Disingenuous Fuckwit of the Day...?