Reply to comment

Okay. This time you weren't flippant, and you get a response in kind:

1. our models are not even good enough to model clouds, let alone the antagonistic and/or synergystic mechanisms of an entire climatic system... so... we leave out the clouds entirely. What else are we leaving out?

The study that I was talking about was based on direct measurements of the sun, one small piece of the much larger picture. Your reluctance to accept models is common. In fact, there is a long history of tussling about models. My review of a great new book, Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming, would certainly be of interest to you.

I think models have their place as long as the scientists who use them understand their limitations. I don't know the details of the climate models that seem to have excellent predictive ability, but I presume they don't "leave out clouds entirely" but rather account for them in an approximate way. The only way to judge the viability of the approximation is to test the models with real data and refine them based on their performance.

The IPCC consensus is based on many different models, each of which has its own strengths and weaknesses, but there is a convergence of big-picture conclusions that can't simply be brushed off because none of the models is perfect.

2. There may be as many as 7 different solar cycles all going simultaneously... we measure two of them, as we didn't even have the ability to SEE these cyclec until the 1990s. Thus we have never been able to measure them... I do know that our sun is a VARIABLE G-type star, and its solar output fluctuates over time. I do know that there is a "galactic environment" that we have only just begun to examine.
I don't know the science here, but the paper addresses specifically fluctuations that skeptics have put forth as reasons to dispute anthropogenic causes. It finds that those specific objections are not valid.

It's always easy to blame unknown or unmeasurable factors, but as long as the anthropogenic hypothesis is supported by an increasing body of evidence, it seems like wishful thinking to do so.

3. Global Warming IS occurring... on Earth and Mars, and Jupiter, and Pluto... NASA has measured it... repeatedly. Are humans responsible for warming there, too? Or could certain commonalities be responsible? We DO exist in the same solar-system, in the same area of the galaxy. Might there be a connection?
I am only aware of credible measurements on Mars and Neptune. I address both of them on earlier entries of this blog. The Neptune measurements still need validation, and they may suggest that we are missing something small. The Mars measurements seem to be related to a changing albedo on the planet due to dust storms.

Again, it seems like wishful thinking that these suggest anything that would dominate the clear human signature of warming on Earth. Some people, you included, seem to be extremely resistant to accepting the consensus and so look far afield for alternatives.

4. I have two peer-reviewed papers here in front of me... one says that atmospheric CO2 increases as a result of warming, the other says that CO2 CAUSES warming. Which is correct? I've even seen data that shows global sea-levels DROPPING... right now. Again, Who is Correct? Where is the miracle consensus?
No one doubts that greenhouse gases cause warming. If both papers are correct, then you are describing a situation of positive feedback with potentially dire consequences.

As for sea level, the IPCC prediction of a slight increase over the next several decades has a huge caveat. The potential of dynamic melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps is not well understood. So we have a predicted value of a meter or so and an error bar of 20 meters.

5. The IPCC dictates results to the scientists instead of the other way 'round... so, who has an agenda? Follow the money, I always say... who stands to make the biggest profit?
This explains why you doubt the consensus. It's the old IPCC liberal conspiracy theory. I'm not taking that bait, but you can see it discussed in several of my other blog entries.

6. Gadgillions of dollars stand to be made from the Anthropogenic global warming hysteria propagated by the IPCC and international media. A new market (Carbon Cap and trade) has been invented out of thin-air to save us all, and the very best one can hope for, if you disagree or question, is that you will be marginalized and discredited, and accused of "spouting." The worst, so far, are the professional witch-hunts directed by the global-warming people against the non-global-warming people.
More of the same. Your first entry was spouting. This was not, until now, that is.

7. Recent estimates by those in the U.S. Congress say that the cost of solving global warming could be as high as "an addition 40% beyond the current tax-burden of the average citizen." Thats a lot of money to spend without concrete science to back it up.
That sounds like Senator Imhofe to me. He has called global warming a hoax. And it is far off the subject of my original posting, which was that one study discredited one part of the skeptics' scientific case.

If this is as big an emergency as everyone says, then why all the conflicting science? If there is a consensus, why is everyone disagreeing? I suspect that it is because there is no consensus, and we don't know what is going on... and everyone has a chip-on-their-shoulder because they are terrified of being wrong (its embarassing, you know). Data is manipulated and/or ignored if it doesn't match a scientist's pet theory... and this is what we want to base international policy on.
More of the same science=politics argument. I suggest you put Newt Gingrich's upcoming A Contract With the Earth on your reading list. The book comes out in November, but the description includes a link for pre-ordering it.

Gingrich and co-author Terry Maple don't like "doomsday scenarios" but they believes it is time to act and that there are plenty of opportunities to make money with minimal government interference.

There's a lot in the book I don't agree with politically, but I believe it can move the debate in a much more productive direction, which seems to be what you want as well, despite your tendency to spout off politically as displayed here.

If an individual pops in and says "I disagree with this because of X," then the name calling starts. I don't get it... aren't we all grown-ups here?

As you see, I'm not calling you names. I am perfectly willing to discuss the science (your first several points). I am judging your political persuasion and approach, which show up in your last points, because they had nothing to do with the article that motivated this thread.

There will be no solution as long as insults fly instead of answers.
I agree, but there will also be no solution as long as people act as if science operates by the same rules as politics.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)