It’s more complicated than you say. AGW science doesn’t say the sun and water vapor are of no consequence or that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas worth paying attention go.

AGW says that CO2, while a very minor gas by percentage in the earth’s atmosphere and a greenhouse gas in its own right, causes large warming by (somehow) causing a positive feedback cycle that affects the clouds and water vapor to cause the larger positive temperature increase.

Frankly I’m not clear on how that happens or what the AGW folks believe the mechanism is. Their main claim rests on the strong historical correlation of CO2 to temperature over the last several thousand years, especially in the 1975-1998 run-up. This is why the debate over the “Hockey Stick” is so important.

Furthermore this is why the current lull in warming is so problematic for AGW advocates. They are modifiying their models so that SO2 and pollution offset the temperature increase of global warming. They also recognize that the low sunspot activity reduces the heat from the sun.

If one accepts this theory, then at some point after the sun becomes more active and the CO2 outstrips SO2 and pollution, the earth will resume its previous warming.

J.J. says~Yes, Gavin is pretty smooth. He does his best to make skeptics feel like they are imbeciles or dense.

Gavin Schmidt’s livelyhood depends on it. When skeptics like Dr. Timothy Ball or Dr. William Gray accept a few thousand dollars for a research paper they are declared “bought and paid for by big oil”, however the entire economic future (i.e. research grants, promotions, tenure, appointments, etc.) of an entire cadre of AGW proponents depends completely on citizen’s allowing their inept and mischievious liberal politicians to buy into this hogwash.

If the cumulative percentage of CO2 in the air causes planetary warming, and the moisture in the atmosphere and amount of btu input from the sun are of no consequence – then why is it when you cool your house with air conditioning in the summer, it removes water vapor from the air – and not CO2. Shouldn’t it leave the huimidity level the same when it removes heat, and just remove CO2 as it lowers the temperature? Shouldn’t that, in fact, be the reverse?

And since the atmosphere of Mars is almost completely CO2, shouldn’t it already be hotter than hell, instead of an average mean of -65C?

JJ: As it turns out, it’s the kind of question that Gavin simply edits out of my post. He’s done it twice now, here and here.

I cannot get a straight answer out of Gavin about AGW advocates supplying their data and methodology (both, dammit) so that others may inspect and replicate.

I’ll take the absence of an answer as the answer.

The way the senate health bill is shaping up, though, it is not global warming that will rise to the surface. As I have felt and stated for about 5 years now, it will again become states’ rights. CWII may well be front page news.
I have reached the point (been there a while actually) where i see a lot of manufactured crises in order to cause mass confusion, argument, etc. The idea is to pit the people against each other to keep us all preoccupied while the real stuff goes on behind the scenes. We wake up imprisoned. Once again, I know this isn’t news. And i truly believe the last thing it is, is a far fetched notion.

In the 70’s we flipped from an inevitable, oncoming ice age to Soylent Green. I guess they think it works better, becaue man is helpless to stop an ice age. But man made global warming? Oh, snap! Why didn’t we think of that sooner?

Huxley, that’s a great question and the kind of question that Gavin will sidestep by saying you bring up a valid point……but you don’t understand the way climate science works (the way it works is they don’t want any “skeptics” {Scientists who aren’t on the Hockey Team} refuting their work) or some such evasion. If you get an honest answer then maybe I’m just a deluded DENIER! You may, however, grow weary of trying to get a straight answer.

The person I most admire in all this is Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. He has persisted for five years. He’s a retired guy like me, and undoubtedly has better things to do with his time. He seems like a bulldodg – got his teeth into this and won’t let go. Also, he’s a statistician who actually understands the methodology used in constructing charts like the Hockey Stick, which is the main tool Hansen has used to predict warming disaster.

Oblio: True enough. It’s an interesting exercise. Gavin’s avoidances are revealing in themselves. We’ll see how far I can get through the maze there.

I still can’t get a straight answer on whether the full data and methodology can be shared or whether he would be willing to have it shared. He keeps shifting position and demands, while naturally sniping and patronizing.

The exercise has helped me to refine my request. The latest version:

“If the stakes are as dire as AGW advocates claim and that the solution requires citizens to turn over 10% or more of the income, it seems to me that we citizens have a right to second opinions based on the full data and methodology.”