http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/04/03/lawrence-solomon-france-to-hold-official-debate-on-climate-change.aspx

The hard science of CO2 driven climate warming needs to be proven before the social and political soft sciences have any role. The theory of AGW was, unfortunately, presented first in terms of social and political considerations long before, and in spite of, any scientific proof. With AGW theory presented as a fait accompli, the hard science has been struggling to find the evidence to support it.

Kudos to France for having the courage to put this to an open discussion. The anger from the skeptics is about the dearth of hard scientific evidence supporting AGW theory and the subsequent suffocation and vilification of anyone questioning this obvious lack. AGW has been a sorry chapter in the history of science. 100 years from now it will be studied by the social scientists, much the same way the theory of eugenics is studied now. The question will be asked how the world was duped on such a massive scale.

I want to hear more! Land Buckets?

/endobscuresaturdaynightliveallusion

Well done, Steve, your portrait in the article is rather charming! Huddled over an ancient laptop in a room lit by a single high-efficiency lightbulb….

Happy Holidays to all, please enjoy your families this Easter and Passover! Cheers!

It’s not the car that makes it right, it’s the driver. The same for models.

I agree that the literary style has been chosen to obfuscate rather than communicate, again an error in my view given the medium through which they intend to communicate and the target audience. This submission will be sliced and diced on the blogosphere and in the newspapers long before we ever hear what Muir thinks of it.

My first impression of the CRU submission was that it was a robust defence of everything they have ever done! That said, it’s 78 pages of fairly dense text, so I may have missed admissions Re Briffa etc; will re-read.

There was an e-mail from Mann which said that it would be ‘nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”.’ CRU claim (at length) that this means a reconstruction long enough to contain the years that big oil-sponsored evil skeptics alleged to show MWP warmth. I certainly find it suspicious that “contain” is within quotation marks in the above Mann quote; seems a bit of a giveaway to me. McKitrick says that it’s an “obvious” “attempt to diminish the perceived magnitude of the MWP”. Agreed – but what can we do to stop CRU weaselling out of this?

Specifics, Tom. Otherwise you’re just another troll.

Nobody has paid me for a few hours with R – I have a day job that sets my reputation as well as pays the bills.

Steve is of course allowed to spend his retirement as he pleases. It’s a shame he uses it to try to shred the reputation of good but human scientists with his own flawed analysis that involves more than just one mislabelled figure.