Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[trysail]

I didn't write the statement below, but I agree with it. Climatology is an immature science; our understanding of the climate system is— at best— primitive.


There is a portion of climate alarmism that can be laid at the feet of misguided zealots who appear to have some sort of anxiety disorder; on the other hand, I have not words of contempt strong enough for that portion of alarmism that is the result of science being co-opted by political opportunists. A rush to take precipitous action in response to a problem that may not even exist is obviously premature, partially delusional and, most assuredly, ill-advised.

The insurance metaphor is simply wrong, yet it occurs frequently. We insure against risks that are relatively certain to occur, we just don’t know when or to whom, so pooling makes sense. To the extent we insure against risks that are highly unlikely to occur at all, it is in small ways. In the case of climate change our multi-billion dollar research budget is such an investment. So is building gas, as opposed to coal, fired power plants, which we are now doing. What we do not do is restructure our economy.

Lost in all the uproar and hoopla surrounding the BEST press release ( sans peer review ) is that, regardless of the direction of climate change, the fact is that climatology still doesn't understand the underlying causes.

...How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that...

-Richard A. Muller, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
University of California, Berkeley​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Heretic!



Get a stake and a torch!

 

[Saint Peter]

So says the flat Earther.

 

[Peregrinator]

Good gawd...

When modeling fails, double down on it perg.

Those linear models predicting a chaotic system are very bit as sophisticated as the economic models used by the Obama Team to prove that three trillion in spending would keep the unemployment rate under 8%. I think we can keep that dramatic and drastic temperature under three degrees by spending no money on it at all...



PS - You know, in the Bibles I grew up with the infallible word of gawd was always printed in red...

I don't have time to address your other post this morning, but this one is easy.

It's not a chaotic system.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cha...ing-can-climate-be-predicted-intermediate.htm

 

[Peregrinator]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm




Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Knutti and Hegerl 2008: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

I didn't write the statement below, but I agree with it. Climatology is an immature science; our understanding of the climate system is— at best— primitive.


There is a portion of climate alarmism that can be laid at the feet of misguided zealots who appear to have some sort of anxiety disorder; on the other hand, I have not words of contempt strong enough for that portion of alarmism that is the result of science being co-opted by political opportunists. A rush to take precipitous action in response to a problem that may not even exist is obviously premature, partially delusional and, most assuredly, ill-advised.








Lost in all the uproar and hoopla surrounding the BEST press release ( sans peer review ) is that, regardless of the direction of climate change, the fact is that climatology still doesn't understand the underlying causes.

See above.

 

[CNYCarol]

New climate study deals blow to skeptics
By Matthew Knight, CNN

London (CNN) -- An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real.

The new analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project examined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 data archives stretching back over 200 years in an effort to address scientific concerns raised by climate skeptics about the data used to inform reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dummies to "Berkeley!" in 5...4...

DUH! It took them long enough to reach a conclusion.

Most of us knew it years ago!

 

[trysail]

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/08/extreme-measures/#comment-110468

...Wrong information is usually worse than no information. If you have no information about the stock market, you may not bet. If you have wrong information about the stock market, you’ll lose a bundle. If you don’t know if a snake shaking its rattle is poisonous, you’ll back off. If you have wrong information about snakes, you’ll get bit...

John Cook's propaganda piece about the long-term track record of computer model forecasts of the climate is deliberately inaccurate and assumes that readers don't or won't read the fine print. It is bogus.

Hint: find out what the assumptions were for Hansen's Scenario C.

 

[Peregrinator]

Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Knutti and Hegerl 2008: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knutti...ti08natgeo.pdf

 

[RightField]

My hands are cold, gimme some mor o dat global warming!

If we're a little warmer, then we won't burn so much heating oil or natural gas in the winter. Sounds good to me.

 

[phrodeau]

My hands are cold, gimme some mor o dat global warming!

If we're a little warmer, then we won't burn so much heating oil or natural gas in the winter. Sounds good to me.

What about your friends in the oil and gas business? You want them to starve?

 

[trysail]

Life Is Like A Black Box of Chocolates

In my earlier post about climate models, “Zero Point Three Times The Forcing“, a commenter provided the breakthrough that allowed the analysis of the GISSE climate model as a black box. In a “black box” type of analysis, we know nothing but what goes into the box and what comes out. We don’t know what the black box is doing internally with the input that it has been given. Figure 1 shows the situation of a black box on a shelf in some laboratory.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ccsm3-as-a-black-box.jpg?w=640&h=360
Figure 1. The CCSM3 climate model seen as a black box, with only the inputs and outputs known.
​

A “black box” analysis may allow us to discover the “functional equivalent” of whatever might be going on inside the black box. In other words, we may be able to find a simple function that provides the same output as the black box. I thought it might be interesting if I explain how I went about doing this with the CCSM3 model.



First, I went and got the input variables. They are all in the form of “ncdf” files, a standard format that contains both data and metadata. I converted them to annual or monthly averages using the computer language “R”, and saved them as text files. I opened these in Excel, and collected them into one file. I have posted the data up here as an Excel spreadsheet.

Next, I needed the output. The simplest place to get it was the graphic located here. I digitized that data using a digitizing program (I use “GraphClick”, on a Mac computer).

My first procedure in this kind of exercise is to “normalize” or “standardize” the various datasets. This means to adjust each one so that the average is zero, and the standard deviation is one. I use the Excel function ‘STANDARDIZE” for this purpose. This allows me to see all of the data in a common size format. Figure 2 shows those results.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/standardized-forcings-ccsm3.jpg?w=639&h=625

Figure 2. Standardized forcings used by the CCSM 3.0 climate model to hindcast the 20th century
temperatures. Dark black line shows the temperature hindcast by the CCSM3 model.

​

Looking at that, I could see several things. First, the CO2 data has the same general shape as the sulfur, ozone, and methane (CH4) data. Next, the effects of the solar and volcano data were clearly visible in the temperature output signal. This led me to believe that the GHG data, along with the solar and the volcano data, would be enough to replicate the model’s temperature output.

And indeed, this proved to be the case. Using the Excel “Solver” function, I used the formula which (as mentioned above) had been developed through the analysis of the GISS model. This is:

T(n+1) = T+λ ∆F(n+1) / τ + ΔT exp( -1 / τ )

OK, now lets render this equation in English. It looks complex, but it’s not.

T is pronounced “T sub n”. It is the temperature “T” at time “n”. So T sub n plus one, written as T(n+1), is the temperature during the following time period. In this case we’re using years, so it would be the next year’s temperature.

F is the forcing, in watts per square metre. This is the total of all of the forcings under consideration. The same time convention is followed, so F means the forcing “F” in time period “n”.

Delta, or “∆”, means “the change in”. So ∆T is the change in temperature since the previous period, or T minus the previous temperature T(n-1). ∆F, correspondingly, is the change in forcing since the previous time period.

Lambda, or “λ”, is the climate sensitivity. And finally tau, or “τ”, is the lag time constant. The time constant establishes the amount of the lag in the response of the system to forcing. And finally, “exp (x)” means the number 2.71828 to the power of x.

So in English, this means that the temperature next year, or T(n+1), is equal to the temperature this year T, plus the immediate temperature increase due to the change in forcing λ F(n+1) / τ, plus the lag term ΔT exp( -1 / τ ) from the previous forcing. This lag term is necessary because the effects of the changes in forcing are not instantaneous.

Figure 3 shows the final result of that calculation. I used only a subset of the forcings, which were the greenhouse gases (GHGs), the solar, and the volcanic inputs. The size of the others is quite small in terms of forcing potential, so I neglected them in the calculation.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ccsm3-20th-century-hindcast-functional.jpg?w=640&h=617
Figure 3. CCSM3 model functional equivalent equation, compared to actual CCSM3 output.
The two are almost identical.

​

As with the GISSE model, we find that the CCSM3 model also slavishly follows the lagged input. The match once again is excellent, with a correlation of 0.995. The values for lambda and tau are also similar to those found during the GISSE investigation.

So what does all of this mean?

Well, the first thing it means is that, just as with the GISSE model, the output temperature of the CCSM3 model is functionally equivalent to a simple, one-line lagged linear transformation of the input forcings.

It also implies that, given that the GISSE and CCSM3 models function in the same way, it is very likely that we will find the same linear dependence of output on input in other climate models.

(Let me add in passing that the CCSM3 model does a very poor job of replicating the historical decline in temperatures from ~ 1945 to ~ 1975 … as did the GISSE model.)

Now, I suppose that if you think the temperature of the planet is simply a linear transformation of the input forcings plus some “natural variations”, those model results might seem reasonable, or at least theoretically sound.

Me, I find the idea of a linear connection between inputs and output in a complex, multiply interconnected, chaotic system like the climate to be a risible fantasy. It is not true of any other complex system that I know of. Why would climate be so simply and mechanistically predictable when other comparable systems are not?

This all highlights what I see as the basic misunderstanding of current climate science. The current climate paradigm, as exemplified by the models, is that the global temperature is a linear function of the forcings. I find this extremely unlikely, from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. This claim is the result of the bad mathematics that I have detailed in “The Cold Equations“. There, erroneous substitutions allow them to cancel everything out of the equation except forcing and temperature … which leads to the false claim that if forcing goes up, temperature must perforce follow in a linear, slavish manner.

As we can see from the failure of both the GISS and the CCSM3 models to replicate the post 1945 cooling, this claim of linearity between forcings and temperatures fails the real-world test as well as the test of common sense.

w.

TECHNICAL NOTES ON THE CONVERSION TO WATTS PER SQUARE METRE

Many of the forcings used by the CCSM3 model are given in units other than watts/square metre. Various conversions were used.

The CO2, CH4, NO2, CFC-11, and CFC-12 values were converted to w/m2 using the various formulas of Myhre as given in Table 3.

Solar forcing was converted to equivalent average forcing by dividing by 4.

The volcanic effect, which CCSM3 gives in total tonnes of mass ejected, has no standard conversion to W/m2. As a result we don’t know what volcanic forcing the CCSM3 model used. Accordingly, I first matched their data to the same W/m2 values as used by the GISSE model. I then adjusted the values iteratively to give the best fit, which resulted in the “Volcanic Adjustment” shown above in Figure 3.

[UPDATE] Steve McIntyre pointed out that I had not given the website for the forcing data. It is available here (registration required, a couple of gigabyte file).


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/life-is-like-a-black-box-of-chocolates/

 

[Peregrinator]

From your link, Trysail:


Roger Sowell says:
May 14, 2011 at 7:32 pm
In my view, “onion2″ on May 14, 2011 at 4:59 am has it right. Willis has stumbled upon a rather well-known and not very interesting computer science application. This is known in some circles as a “model of a model.”

I (and many colleagues) have also created simple one-equation relationships of very complex computer modeling results for oil refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. We did not generally obtain a linear result, but obtained a quadratic result (meaning one of the terms was squared). Many companies do this; the incentive being it is far faster to solve the problem using the simplified “model of a model.” Many times, the detailed, complex model may require hours or days to solve. The “model of a model” may solve in a few seconds, or much faster. The results are sufficiently accurate for the particular application.

For those who might be interested, one application of a model-of-a-model was in advanced process control of oil refinery process units. This control application required the simplified model-of-a-model to solve within a few seconds, and was solved once per hour. The simplified model was fast and robust – it solved every time – while the complex model would solve (sometimes) and required an hour or two.

Another application was to determine the energy consumption of a large, complex refinery and chemical processing plant, plus the utility plant that provided steam, electric power, and compressed air. The individual models that were used to provide the basis for the model-of-a-model required weeks to set up and solve. The model-of-a-model solved in about one second, and was run daily.

This is not a big deal in and of itself.

The greater question is, how much of the last century’s warming was due to natural cycles and natural events (volcanic eruptions), and how much, if any, was due to man’s activities? Man’s activities include (at a minimum) the release into the atmosphere of various gases and particles, changing the land surface, emitting massive quantities of heat from burning fossil fuels, and producing nuclear power.

 

[patrick1]

To repeat: when something is quoted, it would be helpful if the source of the quotation is explained.

Since the critics of climate-science are querying the scientific method used, it would be helpful too if it was explained whether peer-reviewing had taken place before the publication of anything quoted. I understand for instance that Eschenbach, the unnnamed author of the piece recently quoted, does not submit himself to peer-reviewing. In what way is his work authenticated then? Or was that piece peer-reviewed?

P

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't have time to address your other post this morning, but this one is easy.

It's not a chaotic system.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cha...ing-can-climate-be-predicted-intermediate.htm

*chuckle*

Man, I tell you what you are doing, and then you go and do it...

Let's examine another aspect of religion and mass movement. I, and others, who went to school in the 60s and 70s tell you that the press was pushing the global cooling movement, you call me/us a liar and grab a link that says, the bulk of the academic papers were for glowball warning, but as we can clearly see, as Uncle Herman would say, that's apples to oranges. It's not what the popular media was reporting and hence was not the, "everyone I know knows," type of consensus that we were actually addressing.

Look at how the story is reported, when a paper comes out of the Priesthood, that's the story, but if a story breaks the other way, then, of course, the Priesthood's damnation of the source, the author, and the methodology as heresy.

And now, you have someone that can prove climate is not a chaotic system, but it is a well established fact that weather is, in fact that's where Glick's classic book Chaos begins, with Feyman and weather...

The sun has nothing to do with it.

Atmospheric water droplets have nothing to do with it.

Natural cycles stopped with the advent of man...

It's a simple as CO2 and temperature, any idiot can see that, which, is probably why, it is presented as such, any idiot can get his arms around it and have communion with the church. Hell, the catechisms that I had to memorize were way more complex and people latch on to Gawd for the eternal salvation of man.

What I believe we are falling prey to is a mass movement which is press-driven, for that s what the press, they begin locally with fires, car crashes and murders and then go national if they are good at representing victims. Now, it's hard to get a mass movement going over salt, cell phones, vaccines, cold fusion, human cloning, yada yada, yada, for we are talking each person one in turn for victimhood and each person can make the decision for him or herself, am I in danger.

But here's the edge of the environmentalists in establishing their mass movement (and one of the best works I have read on this subject is Eric Hoffer's classic work) is that everyone is a victim, we're all going to die, if we don't repent, reform, and surrender alms, we're all going to hell...

And yet, we are never told what is optimal for Eden or how we get there other than the rather simplistic, don't use fossil fuels, use the sun and the wind...

Use mother nature...



But I still think you're a good guy being driven by true passion and true love, I just not buying it any more than I'm buying what the Seventh Day Adventists are selling me when they make their pitch to save me.

True Science is skeptical Science.

If it were not for the vast sums of money, power and prestige involved, this would just be another inter-department armchair debate.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Knutti and Hegerl 2008: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knutti...ti08natgeo.pdf

Oh good fucking gawd, now you have me rolling on the floor...

You know, the economics department has been around a lot longer than the climate department...

Just three years ago the best models in the world, ones that could, with precision predict every historical economic event of the past when fed the right data and it was applied to us and spit out a stimulus package...

And yet, here you are, believing in the crystal balls of climate because they have model version A14v543.67.

But, each hurricane season, you watch the models, and they change, day-by-day, hour-by-hour and they are not always right, but then, weather is a known chaotic system but it's not possible that climate is because the experts of your consensus all say it is so.

But you're not at all like Lovelynice, Hassan, Rather, LT, U_D, merc...,

You're a well-read man aware of all the latest fashions and trends with experts and links on speed-dial...

This is amusing, but also scary. I can see us throwing ourselves into a great dark age over the elimination of today's evil, dirty, ape-hands energy and the adoption of the promise of perfect energy yet to be perfected, it's only a matter of throwing more money at it, applying regulation and employing the best minds the climate department can produce.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What good is peer review if the only acceptable peer review is the advocacy group itself?

 

[patrick1]

Peer review, like democracy, is the least worst system there is. Do propose an alternative, gump, if you think you know better. If you don't know better: shut up. You make so many pages here, anyone might think you were paid to do this kind of thing.

Patrick

 

[JohnnySavage]

What good is peer review if the only acceptable peer review is the advocacy group itself?

Haha - there's a advocacy group for everyone/thing here in the most powerful city in the world.

A bunch of tiddlywinkers get together, and form an association. Suddenly the Association of Tiddlywinkers starts publishing a journal. It's peer reviewed by the other tiddlywinkers.

Street Cred.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Peer review, like democracy, is the least worst system there is. Do propose an alternative, gump, if you think you know better. If you don't know better: shut up. You make so many pages here, anyone might think you were paid to do this kind of thing.

Patrick

*snicker*

The Bible has been peer-reviewed to death and found to be truthful, so say your prayers...



How about Trial by Jury? We don't "peer-review" law.

You do know that a few years back, someone from the Math department did an analysis of peer-reviewed papers and found that there were a substantial numbers of erroneous papers that passed muster. Of course, his work was peer-reviewed too...

What if your peers have a vested interest in cash and political power and stand to lose much prestige and funding should they give the paper an unfair review?

It's only human.

And as Perg says, "What's the harm in acting as if it were actually true if it produces a cleaner planet?"

Of course, you might want to have that peer-reviewed by the Economics Department, unless, of course, you hate Science...

Have a Nice Day!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Haha - there's a advocacy group for everyone/thing here in the most powerful city in the world.

A bunch of tiddlywinkers get together, and form an association. Suddenly the Association of Tiddlywinkers starts publishing a journal. It's peer reviewed by the other tiddlywinkers.

Street Cred.

And one of the main premises underlying the theme of "The Fountainhead" and currently being acted out under the guise of the "Occupy" movement.

 

[trysail]

Haha - there's a advocacy group for everyone/thing here in the most powerful city in the world.

A bunch of tiddlywinkers get together, and form an association. Suddenly the Association of Tiddlywinkers starts publishing a journal. It's peer reviewed by the other tiddlywinkers.

Street Cred.

It's one of many reasons we abhor the District of Confusion ( a/k/a "Cancer On The Potomac" ). It's chock full of frauds, swindlers and grifters who moved there to feed on the government gravy train.


In so doing, they've wrecked what was once a nice place to live.



______________________



Original Chesapeake Bay Foundation bumper sticker ( c. 1966 ):
SAVE THE BAY

More appropriate Chesapeake Bay Foundation bumper sticker ( 2010 ):
PAVE THE BAY

Suggested future Chesapeake Bay Foundation bumper sticker:
Where are you from? Go back

 

[trysail]

To repeat: when something is quoted, it would be helpful if the source of the quotation is explained...


P

Readers of the piece can readily ascertain for themselves that a link to its source was provided.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

What if your peers have a vested interest in cash and political power and stand to lose much prestige and funding should they give the paper an unfair review?

It's only human.

If the peer reviewers were all from one country or getting funding from the same source, you might have a point. How would you explain the positive reviews of peers in other countries with other political systems and economic models? Vast conspiracy, coincidence or bandwagon riders?

 

[Peregrinator]

*chuckle*

Man, I tell you what you are doing, and then you go and do it...

Let's examine another aspect of religion and mass movement. I, and others, who went to school in the 60s and 70s tell you that the press was pushing the global cooling movement, you call me/us a liar and grab a link that says, the bulk of the academic papers were for glowball warning, but as we can clearly see, as Uncle Herman would say, that's apples to oranges. It's not what the popular media was reporting and hence was not the, "everyone I know knows," type of consensus that we were actually addressing.

Look at how the story is reported, when a paper comes out of the Priesthood, that's the story, but if a story breaks the other way, then, of course, the Priesthood's damnation of the source, the author, and the methodology as heresy.

And now, you have someone that can prove climate is not a chaotic system, but it is a well established fact that weather is, in fact that's where Glick's classic book Chaos begins, with Feyman and weather...

The sun has nothing to do with it.

Atmospheric water droplets have nothing to do with it.

Natural cycles stopped with the advent of man...

It's a simple as CO2 and temperature, any idiot can see that, which, is probably why, it is presented as such, any idiot can get his arms around it and have communion with the church. Hell, the catechisms that I had to memorize were way more complex and people latch on to Gawd for the eternal salvation of man.

What I believe we are falling prey to is a mass movement which is press-driven, for that s what the press, they begin locally with fires, car crashes and murders and then go national if they are good at representing victims. Now, it's hard to get a mass movement going over salt, cell phones, vaccines, cold fusion, human cloning, yada yada, yada, for we are talking each person one in turn for victimhood and each person can make the decision for him or herself, am I in danger.

But here's the edge of the environmentalists in establishing their mass movement (and one of the best works I have read on this subject is Eric Hoffer's classic work) is that everyone is a victim, we're all going to die, if we don't repent, reform, and surrender alms, we're all going to hell...

And yet, we are never told what is optimal for Eden or how we get there other than the rather simplistic, don't use fossil fuels, use the sun and the wind...

Use mother nature...



But I still think you're a good guy being driven by true passion and true love, I just not buying it any more than I'm buying what the Seventh Day Adventists are selling me when they make their pitch to save me.

True Science is skeptical Science.

If it were not for the vast sums of money, power and prestige involved, this would just be another inter-department armchair debate.

Oh good fucking gawd, now you have me rolling on the floor...

You know, the economics department has been around a lot longer than the climate department...

Just three years ago the best models in the world, ones that could, with precision predict every historical economic event of the past when fed the right data and it was applied to us and spit out a stimulus package...

And yet, here you are, believing in the crystal balls of climate because they have model version A14v543.67.

But, each hurricane season, you watch the models, and they change, day-by-day, hour-by-hour and they are not always right, but then, weather is a known chaotic system but it's not possible that climate is because the experts of your consensus all say it is so.

But you're not at all like Lovelynice, Hassan, Rather, LT, U_D, merc...,

You're a well-read man aware of all the latest fashions and trends with experts and links on speed-dial...

This is amusing, but also scary. I can see us throwing ourselves into a great dark age over the elimination of today's evil, dirty, ape-hands energy and the adoption of the promise of perfect energy yet to be perfected, it's only a matter of throwing more money at it, applying regulation and employing the best minds the climate department can produce.

What good is peer review if the only acceptable peer review is the advocacy group itself?

*snicker*

The Bible has been peer-reviewed to death and found to be truthful, so say your prayers...



How about Trial by Jury? We don't "peer-review" law.

You do know that a few years back, someone from the Math department did an analysis of peer-reviewed papers and found that there were a substantial numbers of erroneous papers that passed muster. Of course, his work was peer-reviewed too...

What if your peers have a vested interest in cash and political power and stand to lose much prestige and funding should they give the paper an unfair review?

It's only human.

And as Perg says, "What's the harm in acting as if it were actually true if it produces a cleaner planet?"

Of course, you might want to have that peer-reviewed by the Economics Department, unless, of course, you hate Science...

Have a Nice Day!

Please stop "Gish Galloping." Even if I have time, there's nothing more boring than combing through a thousand words to find all the nonsense that needs to be refuted. It's much easier for you to post a hundred sentences like "Atmospheric water droplets have nothing to do with it" and then move on to the next straw man. Because what you did with that one sentence is 1) assign to the AGW side, the side of science, a position no one holds and then act as though they do hold it, so you could sarcastically act like they don't hold it.

Ya see? It took me a whole paragraph just to reply to that one specious sentence.

I'm not interested.

Here's mention of water droplets in the atmosphere:

http://coelho.mota.googlepages.com/RadiationBudget.pdf

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/JCLI3799.1

http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/ClimSyn/heldsode00.pdf

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf

And here's a pretty screen grab just for you, of the Crock Of The Week video specifically addressing your claim:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/Peregrinator/H2OForcing.jpg

Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs&feature=player_embedded


Want to take this point by point, or are you going to keep carpet bombing?

And thank you for the kind words. I think you, too, are genuine. I just think it's a little too important to you that AGW be proven wrong, and you're willing to go to some extreme rhetorical lengths in order to achieve that. Maybe the best example is your insistence that peer review is nonsense. If that's the case, how do you choose what to believe? You can't individually vet every single scientific study that's published every day. So how do you decide?

 

[Peregrinator]

If the peer reviewers were all from one country or getting funding from the same source, you might have a point. How would you explain the positive reviews of peers in other countries with other political systems and economic models? Vast conspiracy, coincidence or bandwagon riders?

This is probably worth a thread all by itself. Without trusting peer review, what option do we have? Become experts in every field of science and review every study ourselves? When one of us comes down with cancer, who do we trust to have reviewed the literature on drugs, radiotherapy, surgery, etc?