Al Gore: Climate of Denial

[skierinvermont]

The only other measurement system for clouds is surface based (Measured from Ships over the Oceans & on land), and these have much less coverage, especially over the oceans. And it does not contradict ISCCP significant. The IPCC report mentions both Cloud Datasets in the report, and the divergence is exactly when the trend/drop begins.

Again there are error bars, but that again references error potential, the possible error is larger than most scientists would prefer to use, it is recommended not to be used in scientific analysis/peer reviewstudies due to high risk of rejection. If want to publish and the error bar in your analysis is up to 3/4 of the trend at hand, you are going to be rejected.

We had a good way to measure Clouds we would have peer reviewed studies everywhere on it...but we don't. But ISCCP is the best we have at the moment, it simplymeasured reflected SW radiation.

Again none of this means the data is wrong...it means the error bars are large.

The potential error is much larger than the trend itself. Clouds could be increasing or decreasing dramatically and ISCCP would have no idea because it is a completely useless piece of garbage.

As usual you completely made up the claim that the "error bars are equal to 3/4 of the trend." Please provide a link to this bogus claim.

Do you really think you can just make up facts wherever it suits you? Do you have any morals? I have never met somebody so willing to just completely make up blatant lies. 99.99% of the time when people are wrong it's not a black and white case of simply making up random lies.. but you are the exception. How do you have any self-respect?

[BethesdaWX]

The potential error is much larger than the trend itself. Clouds could be increasing or decreasing dramatically and ISCCP would have no idea because it is a completely useless piece of garbage.

Thats just the issue...error potential...not existing error, And ISCCP being "garbage".....lmao

Actually I stand corrected ISCCP is used in peer reviewed studies despite the error potential. No matter the exact cloud trends via different levels (high level, low, level) etc, and error involved, ISCCP can still measure how much SW is being reflected.

http://www.sciencedi...038092X0600082X

Also for your own education on how these two systems work and why the error bars are present, I suggest you read this: http://www.esrl.noaa...-Model-Eval.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Looks like you didn't read the papers given you're posting right away.

[skierinvermont]

Just because we don't KNOW that the data is wrong doesn't mean scientists go around using data simply because it exists when the potential error is massive.

You don't use data simply because it exists. Before you use it, you need to be reasonably confident that it is accurate. And scientists have said over and over and over again that ISCCP data is not accurate enough to use for long-term trends.

[BethesdaWX]

Just because we don't KNOW that the data is wrong doesn't mean scientists go around using data simply because it exists when the potential error is massive.

You don't use data simply because it exists. Before you use it, you need to be reasonably confident that it is accurate. And scientists have said over and over and over again that ISCCP data is not accurate enough to use for long-term trends.

We don't know how accurate it is...it could be accurate, but the error bars are large so we can't say for sure. Reflected SW can still be measured and determined.

I posted a paper on the analysis of the exact reasoning & basis for error bars, the system's diagnostics, etc.

ISCCP is used in peer reviewed studies despite the

error potential. No matter the exact cloud trends via different levels (high

level, low, level) etc, and error involved, ISCCP can still measure how much SW

is being reflected.

http://www.sciencedi...038092X0600082X

Also

for your own education on how these two systems work and why the error bars are

present, I suggest you read this: http://www.esrl.noaa...-Model-Eval.pdf

[skierinvermont]

We don't know how accurate it is...it could be accurate, but the error bars are large so we can't say for sure.

The data I make up with my crystal ball might be accurate. Just because data exists doesn't mean it should be used for anything other than toilet paper unless it can be proven to be reasonably accurate for the purpose it is being used for.

[BethesdaWX]

The data I make up with my crystal ball might be accurate. Just because data exists doesn't mean it should be used for anything other than toilet paper unless it can be proven to be reasonably accurate for the purpose it is being used for.

Only this isn't a crystal ball, it is a satellite, and is used in peer reviewed work.

[skierinvermont]

Only this isn't a crystal ball, it is a satellite, and is used in peer reviewed work.

oooh a satellite... what is that some magic word for "good data"... . satellites are just as capable of producing completely crap data as my crystal ball

it is not used in peer-reviewed work for the purpose you are attempting to use it for.

[BethesdaWX]

oooh a satellite... what is that some magic word for "good data"... . satellites are just as capable of producing completely crap data as my crystal ball

it is not used in peer-reviewed work for the purpose you are attempting to use it for.

Crytal Balls look into the future and alter reality, satelites measure data and interpret it. ISCCP is used in peer reviewed data regarding SW entering the climate system which has increased, also coinciding with the increase in OLR (All LW spectrums).

This paper analyzes the long-term variability of broadband surface solar radiation based on 18 years of three-hourly satellite observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). Direct normal irradiance (DNI) and global horizontal irradiance (GHI) at the surface are derived through radiative transfer calculations, using different physical input parameters describing the actual composition of the atmosphere. Validation of DNI is performed with two years of high resolution Meteosat-derived irradiance. Monthly averages show an average mean bias deviation of −1.7%. Results for DNI from the 18-year time series indicate strong and significant increases for several regions in the subtropics up to +4 W/m² per year, with exception of Australia, where a small decrease in DNI of –1 W/m² per year is observed. Inter-annual variability for DNI is very strong and sometimes exceeds 20%. Comparisons of calculations with and without volcanic aerosol reveal a decrease of up to 16% in annual averages due to volcano eruptions. Changes in GHI are much smaller and less significant. Results show a maximum increase of 0.8 W/m² per year and an annual variability of less than 4%. Volcano eruptions reduce annual averages of GHI by less than 2.2%. The two reanalysis data sets investigated differ strongly from each other and are far off the validated results derived from satellite data.

This since 1983. Likely Cloud Related, but in any case, more energy is getting in. Remember this is land based, and 4W/m^2 per yr is a big deal. In the tropical regions, where the highest energy presence is located, even the slightest spectral reflector change may equate to easily a 5-10W/m^2 alteration over a 30yr timespan.

[skierinvermont]

Crytal Balls look into the future and alter reality,

I wish my crystal ball could alter reality.

[BethesdaWX]

I wish my crystal ball could alter reality.

It seems to be doing so

[skierinvermont]

As an example, UAH satellite data for the longest time indicated that the earth was not warming.

Then they realized that it actually was warming and had to make massive revisions.

Just because data exists or comes from a satellite doesn't mean it should be used, unless the potential error is small.

[BethesdaWX]

As an example, UAH satellite data for the longest time indicated that the earth was not warming.

Then they realized that it actually was warming and had to make massive revisions.

Just because data exists or comes from a satellite doesn't mean it should be used, unless the potential error is small.

When was this? 1979-1996? Trend is still flat there, step change in 1998, and then basically flat with a minor warming trend (This winter it will return to a Flat trend, even more likely given the massive amount of OHC we're losing to space right now). And the outcome then was likely quite different regardless. The whole point here is that More SW energy is getting to the surface, & thus being absorbed by the Oceans. And even yet we're seeing the OHC increase slowing to nearly a halt. Just an FYI since 2003 CO2 increase has led to 0.4W/m^2 RF increase, and An increase in SW appears to be on the order of 1-2W/m^2 via satellite data with an 0.5W/m^2 error bar (This is all in the paper I posted). Somehow the oceans are barely warming, neither is the atmosphere.

For once Surface observations match up from SW at the surface to Satellite analysis in regards to porportion of Reflected SW to SW entering, and regardless of the exact changes in certain low/mid/upper clouds that caused this, & the error onvolved with the contributions, the Data is the same. This should tell you alot about climate sensitivity.

Satellite show more radiation leaving, this demonstrated in increasing OLR, a warming profile that does not match GHG increase, and the flat-lining of temperatures. RSS is cooling slightly, UAH is warming slightly, HADCRUT is cooling slightly, NCDC is warming slightly, GISS is warming.

When combining all datasets: (the Natural warming should be in 2006). GISS Scews the mean a bit. UAH (The satellite you hate), was the warmest of all the sources last month.

[bobbutts]

Thats a funny way to put it to make it sound bulletproof from the AGW alarmist point of view. But in reality, none of those points address the magnitude of AGW component. We have so much uncertainty.

There is a legit reason why the debate has heated up in the last decade and not in the 1990s...because the obs are not consistent with the "theory". Usually in science, that creates doubt and leads to better science being done to figure out why the obs do not match theory. However in this particular science, all it creates is politicized garbage since large money is involved. So we end up having to dig through lots of B.S. to try and figure out what is happening. Climategate showed some dark sides to the peer reviewed process...and the politics have shown their face more than they ever should have in science.

The dirty little secret that most alarmists usually do not acknowledge is that a majority of skeptics believe in AGW, its the magnitude they disagree on. Most skeptics believe there are such large error bars with our knowledge of the climate system that people claiming we will warm by 3-4C by 2100 are off base and that the "science is not settled".

I'm not sure how that is very difficult to comprehend. Yet, every single skeptic (even those mild skeptics) are treated as if they are some sort of three headed alien. But I guess eventually the obs start making more and more headway.

Year 9 of global temps pretty flat and OHC not increasing. Trenberth's missing heat is almost at a decade now. I guess we should probably just blame the instruments and never question the theory of the magnitude of AGW in our climate system.

Great post. It is clearly unfair to put 'skeptics' insisting on better science together with those who basically dismiss science, yet this is exactly what politicians for global warming policy do. It seems to be a trend in the world to have some extreme manifesto, then insist that everyone is either with it or against it 100%. It's a piss poor way to find the truth about anything, because rational people are alienated from the get-go.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Great post. It is clearly unfair to put 'skeptics' insisting on better science together with those who basically dismiss science, yet this is exactly what politicians for global warming policy do. It seems to be a trend in the world to have some extreme manifesto, then insist that everyone is either with it or against it 100%. It's a piss poor way to find the truth about anything, because rational people are alienated from the get-go.

So people like Skier, rusty, and I are not rational about this? I don't get how one can be called an alarmist when we use nothing but the current data to hold our position.

but again...in this forum alone...95+ percent of us are on the same page.

it's the 5% or less that ignore the current reality of this.

Denier------------------------------------------------------------------------------skeptic----------------------------Real Time Data--------------Alarmist.

That is about how it is.

[bobbutts]

So people like Skier, rusty, and I are not rational about this? I don't get how one can be called an alarmist when we use nothing but the current data to hold our position.

but again...in this forum alone...95+ percent of us are on the same page.

it's the 5% or less that ignore the current reality of this.

Denier------------------------------------------------------------------------------skeptic----------------------------Real Time Data--------------Alarmist.

That is about how it is.

I was referring to Gore and politicians in general that comprise the far ends of your chart, not board posters who are almost entirely in between. I think most people here are at least trying to be honest and learn which leads us to some point in the middle.

[BethesdaWX]

So people like Skier, rusty, and I are not rational about this? I don't get how one can be called an alarmist when we use nothing but the current data to hold our position.

but again...in this forum alone...95+ percent of us are on the same page.

it's the 5% or less that ignore the current reality of this.

Denier------------------------------------------------------------------------------skeptic----------------------------Real Time Data--------------Alarmist.

That is about how it is.

Pretty Much

This is also false, the "consensus" is that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, it warms the climate system, and we are responsible for its increase. Thats it. There is no consensus on whether we get 0.1C per doubling or 6C per doubling, that is determined by the climate system's management of the energy budget, & overall sensitivity to change.

"Skeptics" for the most part are part of this so called "consensus"... "Deniers" are classified by 1) Not believing we have warmed, or 2) Claiming CO2 to have no effect on the temperature.

Even though I do not agree with what I am about to write below, it is probably the most objective way to convey it.

Denier................................Skeptic.............Reality.............Warmist.................................Alarmist

[skierinvermont]

Pretty Much

This is also false, the "consensus" is that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, it warms the climate system, and we are responsible for its increase. Thats it. There is no consensus on whether we get 0.1C per doubling or 6C per doubling, that is determined by the climate system's management of the energy budget, & overall sensitivity to change.

"Skeptics" for the most part are part of this so called "consensus"... "Deniers" are classified by 1) Not believing we have warmed, or 2) Claiming CO2 to have no effect on the temperature.

Even though I do not agree with what I am about to write below, it is probably the most objective way to convey it.

Denier................................Skeptic.............Reality.............Warmist.................................Alarmist

Actually there is a strong consensus in the scientific literature that the climate sensitivity is between 1.8-5C per doubling of CO2. I can and have provided dozens of peer-reviewed studies to support this.

Anything outside of this range is not a "consensus" viewpoint.

Even when I was a bit more of a "skeptic" than I am now (for some incorrect reasons), at least I had the intellectual honesty to admit that my interpretation was in disagreement with the scientific consensus.

[BethesdaWX]

Actually there is a strong consensus in the scientific literature that the climate sensitivity is between 1.8-5C per doubling of CO2. I can and have provided dozens of peer-reviewed studies to support this.

Anything outside of this range is not a "consensus" viewpoint.

Even when I was a bit more of a "skeptic" than I am now (for some incorrect reasons), at least I had the intellectual honesty to admit that my interpretation was in disagreement with the scientific consensus.

Those who don't follow the scientific method cannot be included in any consensus...when you take the aspect of AGW theory that avoids the scientific method, you get a much lower consensus view on. Temperature change. Your defintion of consensus is ridiculous. You're talking about maybe 60% of the field in the 1.8-5.0 range even without the scientific method. When you are talking about a scientific consensus (meteorogists, particle physicists, climatologists all have enough proper relevant education to speak on the matter) you need a much higher agreement base than even 80%. And you don't even have that.

I was also more of a warmist before I started receiving actual college caliber education on the matter, speaking to/interviewing scientists, etc. There are glaring flaws in AGW hypothesis, and they've been covered up, or attempted to...and I had no idea how godaweful the scientific basis for AGW was until I actually saw it for myself. In 2030 you and I will both be on the same side.....so will Michael Mann and Phil jones...not earmuffs.

[WeatherRusty]

Those who don't follow the scientific method cannot be included in any consensus...when you take the aspect of AGW theory that avoids the scientific method, you get a much lower consensus view on. Temperature change. Your defintion of consensus is ridiculous. You're talking about maybe 60% of the field in the 1.8-5.0 range even without the scientific method. When you are talking about a scientific consensus (meteorogists, particle physicists, climatologists all have enough proper relevant education to speak on the matter) you need a much higher agreement base than even 80%. And you don't even have that.

I was also more of a warmist before I started receiving actual college caliber education on the matter, speaking to/interviewing scientists, etc. There are glaring flaws in AGW hypothesis, and they've been covered up, or attempted to...and I had no idea how godaweful the scientific basis for AGW was until I actually saw it for myself. In 2030 you and I will both be on the same side.....so will Michael Mann and Phil jones...not earmuffs.

So studies designed to deduce climate sensitivity do not abide by the scientific method? Digging up clues from paleoclimate, volcanism and modeling are not scientific?

What studies of climate sensitivity exist in the peer-reviewed literature to cause Meteorologists and particle physicists to disagree with the studies which have established the published range of potential climate sensitivity most cited.

[BethesdaWX]

So studies designed to deduce climate sensitivity do not abide by the scientific method? Digging up clues from paleoclimate, volcanism and modeling are not scientific?

What studies of climate sensitivity exist in the peer-reviewed literature to cause Meteorologists and particle physicists to disagree with the studies which have established the published range of potential climate sensitivity most cited.

Thats just it! Example, the Volstok Ice Cores. What does CO2 lagging temperature by 800yrs, and temperatures dropping 8C with NO CO2 CHANGE in the last interglacial prove about Co2 as a driver of temperature? Nothing! Paleoclimatological evidence certainly does not point to CO2 as a driver of climate, more-so a response of climate, there is no evidence that CO2 had any significant impact on Paleoclimatologial temperature...none, in fact temperature deos not correlate at all to CO2 RF wise even in the realm of physics. These climate sensitivity values simply assumed through paleoclimatological reconstruction is the perfect way to bust a climate forecast, even in doing all we can to try and boost CO2 as a major driver, it just isn't working.

Another example. When the sun was 30% weaker...no matter how much CO2 we had in our atmosphere, even 10,000ppm, it is not enough to keep us from freezing, and we were often times 10-15C warmer. Only aspect that could otherwise have caused this was the Solar Wind/Cloud Relationship, there is a chance the Earth had very little low level cloud cover in it's earlier years, there was less water very early on in addition, due to the composure of the atmosphere in those days, we should have frozen solid. Less low level cloud cover altogether could equate to more than 20W/m^2 more RF reaching Earth's surface.

[WeatherRusty]

Thats just it! Example, the Volstok Ice Cores. What does CO2 lagging temperature by 800yrs, and temperatures dropping 8C with NO CO2 CHANGE in the last interglacial prove about Co2 as a driver of temperature? Nothing! Paleoclimatological evidence certainly does not point to CO2 as a driver of climate, more-so a response of climate, there is no evidence that CO2 had any significant impact on Paleoclimatologial temperature...none, in fact temperature deos not correlate at all to CO2 RF wise even in the realm of physics. These climate sensitivity values simply assumed through paleoclimatological reconstruction is the perfect way to bust a climate forecast, even in doing all we can to try and boost CO2 as a major driver, it just isn't working.

Another example. When the sun was 30% weaker...no matter how much CO2 we had in our atmosphere, even 10,000ppm, it is not enough to keep us from freezing, and we were often times 10-15C warmer. Only aspect that could otherwise have caused this was the Solar Wind/Cloud Relationship, there is a chance the Earth had very little low level cloud cover in it's earlier years, there was less water very early on in addition, due to the composure of the atmosphere in those days, we should have frozen solid. Less low level cloud cover altogether could equate to more than 20W/m^2 more RF reaching Earth's surface.

Determining climate sensitivity has nothing to do with CO2. It is a measure of global temperature change to a forcing the equal of 3.7W/m^2.

Second paragraph...Pure speculation on your part. There is no definitive solution to the young Sun paradox.

[Sunny and Warm]

Determining climate sensitivity has nothing to do with CO2. It is a measure of global temperature change to a forcing the equal of 3.7W/m^2.

Second paragraph...Pure speculation on your part. There is no definitive solution to the young Sun paradox.

I agree that all the parameters of the young sun paradox are not definitively known. It is not a useful discussion point.

[BethesdaWX]

Determining climate sensitivity has nothing to do with CO2. It is a measure of global temperature change to a forcing the equal of 3.7W/m^2.

Second paragraph...Pure speculation on your part. There is no definitive solution to the young Sun paradox.

1) You never use forcing to blatantly assume a final temperature, 3/7W/m^2 increase in RF doesn't mean anything if we can't hold onto the energy...and to determine sensitivity, using paleoclimate data to determine todays climate sensitivity to CO2 increase is about as stupid as it gets..you can't measure the most important drivers such as clouds & UV rays. You need to determine feedback through causation, to determine why CO2 does not correlate....but first you look at observations and the mechanisms at which temperature is achieved. 3.7W/m^2 from CO2 is acheived differently from the 0.6W/m^2 per 1% change in Low Clouds...same goes for Stratospheric Ozone depletion. We Have:

-Increasing OLR

-A warming profile that does not reflect an enhanced GHE in trapping.

-A halting in the poverall warming trend this past decade

-Higher amounts of SW reaching the surface http://www.sciencedi...038092X0600082X

-Less reflected SW

-Satellite data indeed suggests not only through OLR, but overall in negeral, more radiative energy leaves the planet than we'd assume, and at different timables.

All of this reflects natural causation more-so than Anthropogenic. So where is this "missing heat", or Any CO2 profile evidence? Likely out in space. Also need to keep in mind that Sensitivity to CO2 change and sensitivity to Cloud Cover Loss may be completely different due to the exact mechanism in which energy is gained/lost.

2) Correct, there isn't, but CO2 certainly isn't the Answer. Clouds are the only forcing that we know of that could be strong enough.

[WeatherRusty]

1) You never use forcing to blatantly assume a final temperature, 3/7W/m^2 increase in RF doesn't mean anything if we can't hold onto the energy...and to determine sensitivity, using paleoclimate data to determine todays climate sensitivity to CO2 increase is about as stupid as it gets..you can't measure the most important drivers such as clouds & UV rays. You need to determine feedback through causation, to determine why CO2 does not correlate....but first you look at observations and the mechanisms at which temperature is achieved. 3.7W/m^2 from CO2 is acheived differently from the 0.6W/m^2 per 1% change in Low Clouds...same goes for Stratospheric Ozone depletion. We Have:

-Increasing OLR

-A warming profile that does not reflect an enhanced GHE in trapping.

-A halting in the poverall warming trend this past decade

-Higher amounts of SW reaching the surface http://www.sciencedi...038092X0600082X

-Less reflected SW

-Satellite data indeed suggests not only through OLR, but overall in negeral, more radiative energy leaves the planet than we'd assume, and at different timables.

All of this reflects natural causation more-so than Anthropogenic. So where is this "missing heat", or Any CO2 profile evidence? Likely out in space. Also need to keep in mind that Sensitivity to CO2 change and sensitivity to Cloud Cover Loss may be completely different due to the exact mechanism in which energy is gained/lost.

2) Correct, there isn't, but CO2 certainly isn't the Answer. Clouds are the only forcing that we know of that could be strong enough.

A climate forcing is measured from the top of Earth's atmosphere or the tropopause. It does not matter what the cause is, if the energy balance is disturbed +3.7W/m^2 this will apply a 1.2C warming influence on the surface. If that 1.2C is realized, the range of estimated climate sensitivity becomes the total climate response (from net feedback) at equilibrium (forcing reduced to zero) over and above the "Planck response (1.2C)"

[BethesdaWX]

A climate forcing is measured from the top of Earth's atmosphere or the tropopause. It does not matter what the cause is, if the energy balance is disturbed +3.7W/m^2 this will apply a 1.2C warming influence on the surface. If that 1.2C is realized, the range of estimated climate sensitivity becomes the total climate response (from net feedback) at equilibrium (forcing reduced to zero) over and above the "Planck response (1.2C)"

This does not address anything I mention previously, and yes it would apply before feedbacks presuming they are positive, but this cannot be step 1...it needs to be step 3. It very does matter because based on how the energy budget change is achieved, the application source of RF change on its own (internal vs external RF) can determine how much will/can be "realized". This is where the missing heat comes into play... We cannot blatantly presume our estimations as sound regarding when & how much radiative release comes into play in the timeframe between Radiative/Non-radiative peak & trough, where & when exactly forcing is realized, and the climate system's modulation in response after this has seemingly taken place.

This is where we look to satellite mesurements. We see increasing OLR...why would this be? Refer to my previous paragraph. In the realm of physics, in this case, CO2, the CO2 spectrum on its own is where we would see dampening..ok, no one is agruing that! But it is missing the point.

Next look at temperature data in its own...the Warming profile does not represent CO2 forcing on temperature at all. And the temperature trends on their own are also suspicious given the extra energy must be present, unless it isn't present and is out in space. And then we can go onto step 2...(we won't be able to finish it, but lets try). Determining exactly what could have caused the warming we had been seeing before it abated. And thats where we have several plausible explanations/RF combinations, CO2 included, but CO2 cannot be the only explanation, it is likely one of 5 or 6.

[skierinvermont]

Those who don't follow the scientific method cannot be included in any consensus...when you take the aspect of AGW theory that avoids the scientific method, you get a much lower consensus view on. Temperature change. Your defintion of consensus is ridiculous. You're talking about maybe 60% of the field in the 1.8-5.0 range even without the scientific method. When you are talking about a scientific consensus (meteorogists, particle physicists, climatologists all have enough proper relevant education to speak on the matter) you need a much higher agreement base than even 80%. And you don't even have that.

I was also more of a warmist before I started receiving actual college caliber education on the matter, speaking to/interviewing scientists, etc. There are glaring flaws in AGW hypothesis, and they've been covered up, or attempted to...and I had no idea how godaweful the scientific basis for AGW was until I actually saw it for myself. In 2030 you and I will both be on the same side.....so will Michael Mann and Phil jones...not earmuffs.

Oh so only scientists that bethesdaboy thinks are real scientists count. Got it.

Fact is essentially 100% of the peer-reviewed literature supports a climate sensitivity of 1.8-5C.

[BethesdaWX]

Oh so only scientists that bethesdaboy thinks are real scientists count. Got it.

Fact is essentially 100% of the peer-reviewed literature supports a climate sensitivity of 1.8-5C.

1) No Andrew, those who do not follow the scientific method just don't count...skeptic or believer. Otherwise it is called bad science. Such as using paleoclimate reconstructions to determine climate sensitivity to CO2 when the most important factors cannot be measured with those proxies, including clouds and UVA/UVB concentration. And it is not the Properties of CO2 that are the issue.

I am now just beginning to be exposed to the scientific field itself, I've met several PHD climate scientists...the science is not anywhere near settled, actually much is in the realm of theory & presumption,. If you go and talk to these scientists behind the scenes, away from the media (At lunch, for example), they are scared s**t about the uncertainties of the science. I am not lying to you.

2) Incorrect, as usual...remember only those who follow the scientific method count!

[skierinvermont]

1) No Andrew, those who do not follow the scientific method just don't count...skeptic or believer. Otherwise it is called bad science. Such as using paleoclimate reconstructions to determine climate sensitivity to CO2 when the most important factors cannot be measured with those proxies, including clouds and UVA/UVB concentration. And it is not the Properties of CO2 that are the issue.

I am now just beginning to be exposed to the scientific field itself, I've met several PHD climate scientists...the science is not anywhere near settled, actually much is in the realm of theory & presumption,. If you go and talk to these scientists behind the scenes, away from the media (At lunch, for example), they are scared s**t about the uncertainties of the science. I am not lying to you.

2) Incorrect, as usual...remember only those who follow the scientific method count!

I'll let peer-reviewed journals decide what is and isn't science instead of a know it all teenager on the internets.

[BethesdaWX]

I'll let peer-reviewed journals decide what is and isn't science instead of a know it all teenager on the internets.

Doesn't matter what they think, or what I think, regarding AGW.....conclusive science within the realm of physical reality can only be achieved through the scientific method...if you do not abide by the scientific method you cannot validate your hypothesis.

And who are you calling a "know-it-all" Mr I-have-no-education-in-climate-or-physics?