It’s statements like these that really make it difficult for those of us who are trying to get to some sort of rational discussion of policy (past the hyperventilating rhetoric) to take the Republican Party seriously. While there are many conservative critiques that I believe have a lot of merit, the fact that you guys still cannot accept the overwhelming scientific case that anthropogenic global warming is not only happening it is a major crisis – it’s truly depressing.

Note the diversion from Obamacare to AGW (do coconuts migrate?). What does AGW have to do with Obamacare? Nothing. Mitsu here diverts the subject because even he finds Obamacare indefensible. So now we transition to a discussion of AGW, and he gets hammered here, too, by Mrs. Whatsit, Richard Saunders, blert, at; al, and ultimately by physicsguy who forcefully presents a simple challenge (“let’s talk”). That challenge goes unanswered (i.e., “Oh! Oh! A physicist wants to debate me over something I really know nothing about.”—Mitsu collapses into a quivering gelatinous mass not to be heard from in this thread again).

As I noted, one knows when they’ve won a debate with a Progressive because the Progressive either starts name calling or disappears.

Are *any* of these publicly available for download and independent analysis?
And by “available” I mean:
* COMPLETE source code
* COMPLETE temperature data sets — WITHOUT adjustment and WITH attribution
* COMPLETE process for making any adjustments to the temperature data along with the rationale that justifies the adjustment
* Rationale that justifies the analysis methods
* ANYTHING else that is needed to REPLICATE the analysis.

Given such data one could nominally replicate the published results — if they even published the results at all and not just a “conclusion” based on the results that nobody else has even seen.

And as to the ” … ALL of them agree.” claim. Bullshit. I work with Electro-Magnetic Effects analysts and you rarely get two different analysts to arrive at the same same conclusion for *very* well defined structures and threat environments. And Maxwell’s Equations have been “settled” science for quite a while.

I don’t know sh*t from Shinola when it comes to climatology, but I know a hell of a lot about fast talkers, highbinders, promoters, hot air men, and bullsh*t artists. And that’s what the AGW acolytes are. Did you read the programming comments in the Climategate files?

Try telling the SEC, “Well, I was just smoothing out our profit curve.” Try telling the IRS, “We lost all our past records, but you have to believe us when we tell you these numbers are correct.”

I can just see you, all decked out in your orange jumpsuit and shackles, in the US Marshals’ bus on the way to Lompoc or Pensacola FPC, whining, “But I was just smoothing out the curve!”

It appears that Mitsu is now conspicuously absent.

CANNOT possibly make this SHIT Up!!

If the Left likes an Ice Age so badly, why don’t we all ship them to Mars?

An elegant and simple yardstick! Thank you physicsguy.

And that, in essence, is the entire argument of CAGW: the models say so! The models are just step 2 in the science process, i.e. they are the predictions based on the hypothesis that CO2 (along with a positive feedback loop of water vapor) controls the planet’s temperature.

So far, so good, as far as the science goes. They (the CAGW people) have put forth an idea, then computed the consequences of the idea. Where things went off the tracks is when people began to ascribe a reality to what are predictions that have not been compared to nature. We now have enough time and data to test those models, and they are failing at the 2 sigma level. See for example a comparison of the “spaghetti” of model runs to actual temperatures (http://www.drroyspencer.com/, scroll down the page aways) Note also the UAH temps which are satellite based and thus not subject to errors of surface based instruments like the HADCRUT data.

Any theory whose predictions fail at the 2 sigma level to match nature is thus judged to be faulty. There are many other reasons to doubt the basic premise as others above me have pointed out, but the recent data pretty much nails the coffin shut.

BTW, the science is NEVER settled. Such a statement is made in pure ignorance of how science works. Why do you think everyone was so excited a few years ago when they thought they found superluminal neutrinos? It would overturn Special Relativity, and everyone thought that would be “cool”. A real scientist tries to show themselves wrong…. that’s where you learn new things about nature…. that’s where the fun is!

Back in 2001, the editor of the Seattle Times told me in an e-mail that they henceforth would refuse to publish any information contrary to the theory of CAGW because the “science is settled.” That has been the mind set on the left since at least 2000. Talk about closed minded! If evidence is ignored, it doesn’t exist. They just do not want to debate the facts. They have reached their conclusions because, IMO, it makes such a good case for the state, as envisioned by the statists, to control industrial activity that they don’t approve of.

Many years ago, when I first started looking at this issue, I spent many hours reading the work at Real Climate @ http://www.realclimate.org
The most apparent weakness in their argument and in the models was the fact that CO2 is a minor trace gas in the atmosphere – only 398 parts per million. We also find that CO2 only captures 68% of the infra red heat rays that are radiated out from the Earth to the atmosphere. That makes the affect of CO2 on heat trapping by the atmosphere that much more insignificant. I raised this question with Gavin Schmidt, the main author of the blog: How can such an insignificant trace gas have these outsized affects on the heating or cooling of the atmosphere? The answer was: There is a “forcing” that magnifies the affect of CO2. The forcing is, in their opinions, water vapor in the atmosphere. That, of course brings up another issue. Since water vapor is highly variable in amounts and geographical locations, how can you arrive at an average value to use that is valid. Their answer: We have estimated it to the best of our ability. Computer modeling experts who have examined the climate computer models touted as the proof of CAGW have pointed out that the “forcings” are mainly guesses and that they have been manipulated to provide the desired results. In other words, the models are primarily propaganda.

Thus, while temperatures have warmed by .6C in the last 100+ years, the exact cause remains unknown. The science is not settled. The debate continues. To dismantle a modern economy that floats on a sea of energy produced primarily by fossil fuels just because of an unproven theory, is unwise in the extreme.