As I mentioned a couple of posts back, the claim that mainstream science is totally wrong about global warming is an orthodoxy that is almost universal among commentators, bloggers and thinktanks on the political right in Australia, even though the great majority of ordinary Australians, including Coalition supporters, believe the science.
The great majority of Australian take the view that, while scientists aren’t always right, it’s much better to act on the basis of the best available science than to assume that the scientists are wrong. For this, they are attacked by rightwing commentators as religious fanatics or, at best gullible innocents.
One limited exception to this appeared to be the Centre for Independent Studies. A while back Andrew Norton got stuck into Clive Hamilton for listing CIS in the delusionist camp on the basis of some fairly tenuous links. As Norton observed, the CIS had never published much on the topic (though what it did publish was in line with delusionist orthodoxy) and had published nothing since 2003.
CIS has made up for it now, with this piece by Arthur Herman (also published, less surprisingly, in the Oz). It’s got everything – “global warming as a religion”, Al Gore conspiracy theories, Godwin’s Law violations on eugenics, the Spanish Inquisition and so on, backed up by some typically dodgy Internet factoids. As with much in this genre, it’s important to note the call for the replacement of science, as it currently exists, with “real science” in which people like Herman (self-described as “an historian and author”) will lay down the rules.
What’s striking here is the contrast between the willingness of just about everyone on the political right to sign up to a set of beliefs that are dictated entirely by political tribalism and their self-perception as brave heretics, spelt out in more than usually ludicrous fashion by Herman.
Tim Lambert does garbage pickup on Herman’s “facts”. Strikingly, given that he’s supposed to be an (sic) historian, Herman seems to have a lot of trouble with dates and references. And there’s more from Nexus 6 and Gary Sauer-Thompson.
Update: In a comment from Jennifer Marohasy it was announced that Michael Duffy was willing to give $1000 to anyone who would nominate ““Some work/some research results that have been published in reputable scientific journals that:
1. examine the causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and warming, and
2. quantify the extent of the warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. ”
Several people provided responses and, after coming back from my hiatus I wrote to Duffy asking the status of my offer. He replied “I asked Jennifer Marohasy about this, because she’s the one who needs to be satisfied. ” and appended a response from her indicating that she was, in fact, not satisfied.
From the original statement, I didn’t realise that Duffy meant to include “satisfactory to Jennifer Marohasy” as a term of the offer. Now that we’ve cleared that up, I think we can regard the offer as in line with the Socratic irony approach to scientific discussion.
There seems to have been something of a meltdown chez Marohasy, so I think we can take this offer as being off the table for all practical purposes
John Quiggin 
John,
“The great majority of Australians,, take the view that, while scientists aren’t always right, it’s much better to act on the basis of the best available science than to assume that the scientists are wrong.”
This is because they are being fed a non specific religion.
When Al Gore, Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong et al equate pollution with CO2, they are misleading the public.
Subsequently this “great majority” are simply confused and grasp the precautionary principle for any comfort.
That’s what comes of using propaganda instead of science even though that science may be right.
Thanks for proving my point, sd.
“The great majority of Australians,, take the view that, while scientists aren’t always right, it’s much better to act on the basis of the best available science than to assume that the scientists are wrong.”
“The best available science” at the moment can not put AGW beyond reasonable ‘scepticism’ (doubt). When “the great majority of Australians” are properly informed of that FACT (as now the are not), they will act on that “basis”.
Yeah damn those stupid Aussies.
Don’t they know that their libertarian betters are vastly wiser and better-informed than them?
Somebody tell me again how the left are a bunch of out-of-touch elitists who despise the common man.
Oh and Tony you might want to look up the definitions of the word “fact” (sorry FACT it’s so much more credible like that)and “opinion”.
What I don’t get is why are they doing this, the ice is going to continue to melt no matter what words are written, making the right wing bloggers look like bigger fools as time goes on ( it is possible).
I suppose that doesn’t matter if your a right wing blogger, but for a political party that is trying to convince us it is wise enough to form government. I just can’t fathom the stupidity of it.
Perhaps CO2 is not pollution in (most of) OZ, as it depends on the local atmospheric conditions in cities that are hot and have smog problems.
CO2 very *definitely* is pollution, at least in certain areas of California, and very likely elsewhere. [If I had to guess, perhaps Sydney.]
Stanford Professor Mark Z. Jacobson is very good – I’ve heard him talk a few times and read some of his papers. Here’s his April 9 testimony to the US House of Representatives.
Simply:
1) While CO2 is generally well-mixed, in big urban areas with the right climates, local CO2 concentrations are noticaebly higher.
2) If the area is already polluted, the extra CO2 makes it worse, i.e., ozone and other things. If the area is not already polluted, the extra CO2 has little *local* effect.
3) This likely happens elsewhere, but we *know* it happens here, given the strong attention of the CARB – California Air Resources Board and our top universities to this topic.
It is not accidental that CA is so keen on electric cars and trucks. While cellulosic ethanol / biodiesel might be better for AGW issues, they actually aren’t particularly better for air pollution. Hydrogen would be fine, but is way off, although we’ve tried. For now, we need BEV/PHEVs in quantity, and we are gearing up for smart charging stations, Google is going at it, etc.
SUMMARY: in some places, CO2 IS pollution. In other places it isn’t.
When politics trumps reality, reality eventually bites… hard. Any political commentator who chooses to deny reality will one day find that no one wants to read their political comments any more.
That piece of fluff by Arthur Herman is very, very funny stuff!
This frantic burst of nonsense is part of the Denialist Winter Campaign of 2007/8, which has ground to a halt in a circling of wagons. The one rifle left, with a box of blanks,is being shared among the usual suspects. The effect -small explosions and agitated chattering- is loudest within the circle.
If you google up Mr Herman you’ll see that he’s also an expert on how to fight to war in Iraq. What a Renaissance Man!
Spiros, our humble professor is the only person qualified to have an opinion on everything. Withdraw your comment immediately.
BBB
The great majority of Australian take the view that, while scientists aren’t always right, it’s much better to act on the basis of the best available science than to assume that the scientists are wrong. For this, they are attacked by rightwing commentators as religious fanatics or, at best gullible innocents.
Assertion of the year.
Where does this come from?
And please don’t say a poll.
Wow that is pretty out there stuff. I always thought the the CIS, while be right wing, was a ‘reasonable’ organisation. The presence of Andrew Norton being a pointer. But that piece is off the planet.
I know the libertarians don’t like climate change because it suggests a collectivist solution and they can’t process the fact that there might be at least one problem not requiring an individualist solution (‘Does not compute! Does not compute!”).
But I am with Charles on this one, are the so self-deluded that they really believe what they are saying?
The great majority of Australians wouldn’t have a clue about the science, poltics or economics of climate change.
Assertions aren’t that hard
Any one can do it.
Well, obviously, ChrisL the otherwise inexplicable fialure of the Australian electorate to embrace the Liberal Democratic Party displays how ignorant and foolish we all are.
Clearly we’re all in need of a healthy dose of Hayek’s liberal dictatorship.
Ian Said,
“Oh and Tony you might want to look up the definitions of the word “factâ€?”
One thing that is clear is that AGW is a hypothesis not a fact.
“Climate-change promoters also are perplexed by the observations of NASA’s eight weather satellites. In contrast to some 7,000 land-based stations, they take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the surface of the Earth. In 30 years of operation, the satellites have recorded a warming trend of just 0.14C — well within the range of normal variations.”
Ian: I have never heard of the Liberal Democratic Party. How is this relevant.
I must say about #3 that we are not in a court of law here. But actually there’s not even ‘reasonable doubt’ about whether it’s happening. The only doubts, and this is where the scientific debate is at, are about the effects of it.
Anyway it’s fun to see how many delusionists are still rising to the bait every time Professor Q stirs the pot!
“One thing that is clear is that AGW is a hypothesis not a fact.”
As are gravity, relativity, the germ theory of disease and the existence of atoms.
Your assessment of whether there’s a “reasonable” degree of doubt regarding the AGW is not “fact” it’s opinion.
ChrisL,your lack of knowledge doesn’t dtract from the fundamental point that most libertarians underneath their rhetoric about freedom despise about 99% of the human race and think they’re uniquely qualified to dictate how society should be run.
charles (5) said “What I don’t get is why are they doing this..”
I share your bewilderment.
I can understand the occasional hired gun for the oil or coal industry.
But the apparent fervency of this belief that AGW cannot be happening, despite all the evidence, is truly bizarre.
It’s also difficult to understand how a group of people could be so wedded to a belief when defending it involves so much deliberate intellectual sleight-of-hand.
It is a truly, truly strange phenomenon.
It’s also going to (I hope) really really truly destroy their credibility (unfortunately at the cost of large parts of the world economy and countless lives).
Andrew Bolt, there’s a special place reserved for him when all this is over.
It’s striking how well the comments support the post. On the sole factual point
ChrisL, how would you suggest determining the opinion of the majority of Australians other than by a poll (whether it’s a sample or a vote of the entire electorate)? Perhaps we should rely on the infallible intuition of Andrew Bolt and similar commentators.
Dear Friends of John Quiggin,
I’ve been having some discussions with a friend who has never thought too hard about AGW.
Anyway, he says there must be some work/some research results that have been published in reputable scientific journals that:
1. examine the causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and warming, and
2. quantify the extent of the warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
Can anyone help please?
What I really want is copies of/links to research papers or citations to research papers, not links to opinions and blogs.
Best, Jennifer Marohasy
On reading this, I thought it must be a hoax. Surely, having written for years on this topic, Jennifer Marohasy would be aware of at least some of the relevant scientific literature. But apparently not – there’s a post at her site in exactly the same terms. This certainly helps to explain how the political right gets things so badly wrong.
My suggestion for a reasonably well-educated novice would be to start with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 1, particularly Chapter 9, on understanding and attributing climate change. This summarises the literature on these questions, and the reference list includes hundreds of papers on both the causal link and the question of sensitivity (the standard way in which these questions are addressed). There’s also a supplementary CD-ROM on sensitivity, if you’re really keen. (All this is well-timed as I’m just working on a paper for an econ journal which has required me to go over some of this literature).
Ian: You must be confusing me with someone else.I don’t know what a libertarian is, I don’t despise 99 % of the human race,and I wouldn’t dictate how the human race should be run. Not guilty .
John: What was the poll and how was the question posed Be careful, it might be a trick question.
A few people here know something about the Beer-Lambert Law for calculating energy absorption and something about the fourth power law for calculating radiative heat transfer.
If these terms mean nothing to you, kindly sit down, shut up, learn some science and come back when you are less ignorant about atmospheric physics.
Post 24 is a doozy. JQ’s riposte at 25 is nicely understated and all the more devastating for that.
Er um, yes, maybe I am also trying to curry a little indulgence from JQ since I now have posted a very long (for a blog) piece on energy economics in Weekend Reflections. I must beg his indulgence because I am merely an amatuer and self-taught thinker in such matters. However, I think that an intelligent layperson (I flatter myself as a Jane Austen character might say) ought to be able to have thoughts on the subject.
I am suspicious of Jennifer Marohasy’s plea for papers. I suspect she is trying to set up the argument ‘I asked for scientific papers about causality but all I got was papers showing association not causality. This shows the evidence is not there.’
Thanks for the quick feedback, including from John and Alan.
But can I also get from you please, as originally requested, the title of the relevant peer-reviewed paper, journal reference etcetera? Cheers,
Nice try Ian
You cannot prove any theory to be true. You might think up a thousand totally different tests to try to disprove the theory, and it might pass every one. Does that mean it is “true”? No, because the 1,001st test could prove it false. While scientific theories are never supposed to be considered to be absolute truth, some have passed so many tests that they are called “laws.” For example, we will learn Kepler’s laws, and Newton’s laws. A scientific law is like a theory that has been inducted into the “Science Hall of Fame.” But even then it might have to be modified. Einstein found some corrections even for Newton’s laws, but they are normally far too tiny to even be able to measure.
The word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, “facts” refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as “It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum.” This is the part of science which will be the same a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise.
It is a fact that every time Newton dropped his apple, gravity pulled it to the ground.
In AGW there are no are repeatable observations under controlled conditions.
There are essentially three steps to the
scientific Method;
1. Make Observations.
2. Propose a Theory.
3. Use the Theory to Predict Future Observations.
The heart of science lies in this third step. Having your theory, use it to predict the outcome of a future observation. This is the “testing” part of science. AGW scientists can not test their theories in the real world (only a computer).
Falsification. An important point is that if the prediction fails then the theory must be discarded or changed. AGW has not passed one prediction yet.
These three steps are usually repeated over and over, often refining the theory after each set of new observations or experiments, with increasingly difficult testing hurdles for the theory to overcome. The most valuable theories are those which make precise and risky predictions, which could easily disprove the theory if they failed.
AGW has not yet successfully predicted the outcome of a future observation..
Repeat the Three Steps Until Satisfied. If your theory passes the first falsification test, then think of another experiment to test another aspect of the theory. The idea of science is to repeat the three steps over and over until you are convinced you have a theory good enough to correctly predict the outcome of experiments in a wide variety of situations. To do this, scientists like to use “controlled” experiments when only one thing changes each time. . Each time your theory should make a measurable prediction.
In the case of AGW where are the measurable predictions that have been past?
Unscientific Theories. If your theory makes no prediction, then it cannot be tested and hence it is not scientific. It still might be the correct explanation, it is just not scientific because the scientific method cannot be used to falsify it. There are many theories out there which cannot be tested, masquerading as scientific theories in order to have credibility. BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THEM.
Nice gotcha from Jennifer.
John, there may very well be (as there indeed are) many hundreds of peer-reviewed, published and oft-cited scientific papers on the subject. And you probably thought you where very clever to allude to them, but there’s no out-clevering our Jennifer.
All those IPCC cites no doubt show that CO2 is rising and that there is a demonstrable rising trend in global temperatures. But, do they clearly indentify the effect of the anthropogenic CO2 vs. the non-anthropogenic CO2???
It may be the non-anthropogenic CO2 that’s causing the problem. Hadn’t thought about this had you JQ?
Until we have the science on this, there can be no AGW, and Jennifers “friend who has never thought too hard about AGW” (or is it one of those ‘I have a friend…’ things) will remain unconvinced.
Tony G., your description of Popperian falsification is simplistic in the extreme.
You’re also misusing the term law and theory.
The AGW hypothesis is based on the application of whole succession of physical laws (for example the laws of thermodynamics, the laws describing the absorption and re-emission of photons by carbon dioxide molecules).
The fact is that the Earth has warmed since humans started adding largwe amounts of additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This was predicted by scientists as far back as Arrhenius in the 18th century.
The AGW computwer models also, for example, predicted that the northern polar regiosn would warm more rapidly than the southern – which ahs happened.
I guess you want the models to predict the temperature at yoru hosue next Febreary 23rd to the nearest tenth of a degree.
Not going to happen.
Do you follow the search for asteroids on potential collision causes with the Earth. The asteroid Apophis has been being studied for years – and the published estimates of the odds of it hitting the Earth this century keep fluctuating from anywhere between several hundred to one and several thousand to one.
That’s because we only have estimates (albeit pretty accruate ones) fot such key variables as orbital velocity, rotational velocity and composition and we don’t know every single other asteroid which causes slight perturbations to its orbit.
Does that make Newton;s laws nonsense?
If 99% of the world’s astronomers announced tomorrow that the probability of it impacting us was actually 80 or 90% would you believe them or the other 1%? Would you point ot past uncertainty to argue that it “reasonable” to take no action.
Let’s see: “Astronomer isn;t really a science because its impossible to conduct controlled experiments, all you do is observe.”
“Astronomers used to think the stars were holes in the celestial sphere, what do they know?”
“They’re just out to get more money for telescopes.”
I’d suggst also that you might benefit from read Thomas Kuhn’s critique of Popper.
“All those IPCC cites no doubt show that CO2 is rising and that there is a demonstrable rising trend in global temperatures. But, do they clearly indentify the effect of the anthropogenic CO2 vs. the non-anthropogenic CO2???
It may be the non-anthropogenic CO2 that’s causing the problem. Hadn’t thought about this had you JQ?”
I’m inclined to think that this post may be intentionally ironic. If so, my apologies to Michael.
1.Scientists can differentiate anthropogenic carbon dioxide from naturally occurring carbon dioxide. They do so measuring the ratio of the different istopes of carbon. Carbon in the atmosphere is exposed to cosmic radiation which results in some of the stable isotopes C-12 and C-13 being converted into the radioactive isotope C-14. Carbon which has been buried for millions of yearshas not been exposed to cosmic radiation while buried and is depleted in carbon-14.
2. Becasue we know how much anthropogenic carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, we can calculate how much non-anthorpogenic carbon dioxide is there as well. There has been no statistically signficant change in the amount of non-anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmopshere during the recent warming.
3. From easuring carbon dioxide levels in air trapped in ice cores we can see in detail how natural carbon dioxide level fluctuated over the past 850,000 years or so. At no point during that period did carbon dioxide levels change as rapidly as they are currently.
4. If some mysterious unidentified natural process is somehow pumping billions of toones of additional carbon dixoide into the atmosphere at a rate unseen for at least the better part of a million years then, if anything, the situation is even more serious than the so-called alarmists have been saying.
Since we have no idea what is causing this putative increase in non-anthropogenic carbon dioxide we have no idea how long it’ll last or how much it’ll ultimately increase the global temperature. If that’s true, then the case for trying to limit the contribution to the overall rise from the bit we can control – anthorpogenic emissions – is probably even stronger.
Essentially Jennfier’s argument is – yes we’re heading straight for a brick wall but it isn’t necessarily only my foot on the accelerator which is causing the car to accelerate. There might also be a gigantic electromagnet hidden behidn the wall. So why should I take my foot off the accelerator?
Jennifer,
If I might suggest the best place to start is with undergraduate textbooks.
I recently had a long e-mail discussion with (co-incidentally) another historian which I found a little unsatisfying, since we discussed the chapter 9 above and his response boiled down to “this chapter is based on models and I don’t trust models”. The IPCC report doesn’t really give you a tutorial for how this sort of thing works.
Recently I’ve had a little time on my hands, and sat down with some undergraduate textbooks on meteorology and climate modelling. These are much more readable and structured than the IPCC stuff. So try:
* Atmospheric Science, Second Edition: An Introductory Survey. Wallace and Hobbs
* Climate Modeling, A Primer. (I don’t have the authors handy)
* An Intro. to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling. Washington and Parkinson.
The first and third of these have got a bit of vector calculus, the second is probably a bit more readable, but then glosses over stuff; on the other hand, it’s a great backgrounder. Chapter 6 of the last one answers your questions above, as does the last chapter of “Atmospheric Science”.
Michael, perhaps you’d like to spell out what you mean by out-clevering. Jennifer Marohasy claims not to know of the hundreds of papers cited by the IPCC and (even more surprisingly) appears to be unaware that the best way for novices to approach an area of science of which they are ignorant is not to dive into the current journal literature but to read a good textbook or summary. I and others here have taken her at face value and sought to set her straight.
Since it appears that you’re set on journal articles, here are some cited in the paper I’m currently working on
J.D. Annan and J.C. Hargreaves (2006), Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity, Geophysical Research Letters, 33 (6): Art. No. L06704
Harvey, L.D.D. (2000), ‘Constraining the Aerosol Radiative Forcing and Climate Sensitivity’, Climatic Change, 44(4), 413-18.
Stainforth, D.A. et al. (2005), ‘Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases.’, Nature, 433(7024), 403-06.
But these articles are focused on the question of how best to estimate and express uncertainty about sensitivity – they assume that you already have a reasonably good handle on the basic points. The good thing about them, for me, is that the central issues are statistical and therefore within my area of expertise. For the physics and climate science modelling stuff, I stick with the IPCC and more accessible expositions like
Thorpe, Alan J. (2005), ‘Climate Change Prediction: A challenging scientific problem’, Institute of Physics, http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_4147.pdf
As in so many cases accusations made against others are a reflection of the mind set of the accuser. Those who accuse others of behaving like a religion are not sceptics but believers with a delusion which will not be changed despite scientific evidence.
Unfortunately for us all this is not a religion but a situation which needs a response urgently. Religious responses of unshakable belief by Delusionist believers are not helpful.
The Luddites were well meaning but in the end irrelevant and overtaken by events. Any historian should bear this in mind as the science of global warming is examined.
Watch out scientists and modest folk, that charming and widely written Jenny has a devastating sucker-punch alright. With her super friends Arfur, Don, Andy, Timmy, Janet, BobbyC, DickyL – and Miranda – she’s well on your case.
They’re skeptics doodz, skeptics … lock up your daughters!
Un case anyone wonders, a libertarian did not run over my dog.
But having twice now been threatened with physical violence by libertarians, I can’t really bring myself to care about their remarkably sensitive little egoes.
I tell you, the state of scientific literacy in this country is shocking. It’s probably not helped by those on the right choosing to set aside the science in favour of ideology. And here I was believing that scientific rigour was meant to be the basis of modernism.
What we have is a bunch of right wingers adopting the tenet that global warming can not be real and then accusing the rest of the world of being part of some vast leftist conspiracy seeking to destroy the global economy.
Bolt, Herman, etc. are not scientists and, from what I’ve read of their work, don’t really understand science all that much. People like Ian Lowe, Dr Karl, Al Gore, etc. are trying to help people come to an understanding of what’s going on and convince them to press their politicians for action. Unfortunately, they come up against right wingers for whom denying the very idea that the science could be correct is a well-paying job.
I see John Quiggin is using the Emperor’s new clothes approach to convincing skeptics of the veracity of the AGW threat. Call your target audience names until they submit through fear of looking stupid.
Calling someone a delusionist is hardly going to convince them of your argument. This is the reason why people who have no deep understanding of the argument end up supporting the skeptics. If I look at the arguments from skeptics I am not insulted. I am told in a very simple to understand fashion the reasons that the author is skeptical of the threat. If I look at deltoid, realclimate or here all I see is personal attacks and insults.
I would recommend to any who understand the science and have a genuine belief that action needs to be taken soon to show a little maturity and treat their intended audience with respect.
Sorry JQ and Ian, I wasn’t being at all serious.
Just poking fun at Jennifers attempt to redefine the area of scientific contention.
Umm, Ben, have you read the article linked in this post, Nazis, Spanish Inquisition and all? That piece alone (and there are dozens like it) show your claims to be not merely false, but ludicrous.
But, to be clear, I have no project of convincing delusionists. Everyone who can be convinced by evidence, including the vast majority of the Australian public, has been. The only thing to do with the remaining delusionists is to keep them away from political power as much as possible. Pointing out their silliness is one way of doing that.
Sorry Michael, it’s hard to tell the parody from the real thing sometimes.
“If I look at deltoid, realclimate or here all I see is personal attacks and insults.” – Ben
Well then, you aren’t reading very carefully.
Both Deltoid and Realclimate give detailed and point-by-point breakdowns of the errors, misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the so-called ‘sceptics’.
Go have another look.
I see little danger from the AGW delusionists/deniers/skeptics from here on, being relegated to time wasters. This latest round of intensity is a last flurry of desperation to be heard or confuse the issue when the vast majority have made up their minds.
The really dangerous ones are those advocating the ‘populate or perish’ line, the jennifers, the pells, the david cappos and the real estate sector and it’s interest groups. This will be the next great debate and I have noticed an increase, in the last few months, of experts and reports willing to forthrightly say that we cannot continue to grow our populations, where once it seemed to be taboo.
The longer we fart around arguing about AGW, the longer it will take to get to the Population Growth problem.
“Sorry Michael, it’s hard to tell the parody from the real thing sometimes.” – JQ
Yeah, I thought the same after seeing my post up – you can’t parody these people, they’ve already done it.
For reasons that aren’t clear to me, Tony, I keep hoping that you’ll learn something here, but apparently not. That’s another week’s block, and this is your last chance. Any repetition of abuse, or attempt to evade this block will result in a permanent ban. – JQ
“Typical commo statement.”
Devasting comeback. Pity it’s about 50 years out of date. Or maybe it’s parody?
Michael Duffy has just offered A$1,000 to the first person to provide a reference to the sort of paper I describe in the original comment at my blog which is more a less what I have written in the above thread, that is :
“Some work/some research results that have been published in reputable scientific journals that:
1. examine the causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and warming, and
2. quantify the extent of the warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
What I really want is copies of/links to research papers or citations to research papers, not links to opinions and blogs.”
John Quiggin replied in the above thread that: “the reference list includes hundreds of papers on both the causal link and the question of sensitivity (the standard way in which these questions are addressed).”
So if you believe Professor Quiggin someone should be able to make a quick A$1,000 from Michael Duffy?
More information here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003315.html#comments