Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

...It's not so much the result of the actual scientists, but the distortion of facts by alarmists that cause it to be constantly referred to as a pseudoscience. When politicians are fronting your "science" it's time to do a self check. Politicians aren't interested in understanding or comprehending the science, they just use it to further their agenda.

Please indicate anywhere, except pseudoscience political blogs where AGW is called a "pseudoscience."

 

[Mikemcc]

I agree. AGW meets every definition of a pseudoscience, most notably: the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

It's not so much the result of the actual scientists, but the distortion of facts by alarmists that cause it to be constantly referred to as a pseudoscience. When politicians are fronting your "science" it's time to do a self check. Politicians aren't interested in understanding or comprehending the science, they just use it to further their agenda.

Links to your, rather wild, claims would be appreciated

 

[Furcifer]

3b
You have made that claim any number of times without a shred of acceptable explanation supported by climate science - just a claim and even when people explain nicely that you are misguided in your thinking that this is a black swan - you persist in the claims.....and in the lack of evidence.

What do you mean "lack of evidence"? The paper is clear and scientifically sound. Just because you don' understand doesn't mean it's a "black swan". I never made any claims, climate scientists did.

Any wonder your arguments are not taken seriously? You can't or won't support them and then complain about others that do support their positions with "copy/pasta"

I could care less if you "take me seriously". It's obvious you don't take the science seriously.

Why don't walk the audience through the "implications" of your relevatory discovery in a documented manner that does not contravene established physics.

The current GCM's don't come close to properly accounting for the Earth's radiation entropy flux.

However, the entropic aspects of climate theory have not yet been developed as well as those based on energy, momentum, and mass balances.
RADIATION ENTROPY FLUX AND ENTROPY PRODUCTION OF THE EARTH SYSTEM Wei Wu and Yangang Liu 14 May 2010

From the same article:
Comparison analysis shows that the commonly used expression of radiation entropy flux as the ratio of radiation energy flux to absolute temperature underestimates the Earth’s radiation entropy flux by >30%.

Why is that important? Well it should be evident to anyone with the slightest bit of scientific understanding of how the models work. In case you don't here's a paper that explains them: Should we believe model predictions of future climate change?

To simplify: Incorporation of additional uncertain climate forcing or feedbacks may even destroy the consistency between simulated and observed past global surface warming.

Yes, may even destroy the consistency to past observed warming, because as everyone but the alarmists seems to grasp, future predictions are tenuous at best.

As the paper points out:
Because solar radiation is the primary driving force for all the activities within the Earth’s climate system and radiation at different wavelengths reaches and warms different atmospheric layers, this finding raises some important questions critical to studying the Earth’s climate system: What is the consequence of the changing TOA SSI to the Earth’s climate system? Could this finding change our view of greenhouse-gas induced global climate change?

Not "can it change them", it will in fact change them. At least for the scientists studying the climate. Alarmists will carry on like nothing even happened and consider any development that questions their faith a "black swan".

 

[Furcifer]

So, I take it, you now embrace and publically proclaim your rejection of AGW and presumably, along with it the accepted mainstream science of which it is part and which supports its findings?

Man made CO2 contributes to warming. To what extent and effect is ostensibly pseudoscience.

 

[macdoc]

Not "can it change them", it will in fact change them

That is YOUR conclusion - no one elses....but do please continue to cling to faint hopes that the entire body of climate science for a century is wrong.

3b

Just because you don' understand doesn't mean it's a "black swan"

Your lack of understanding of what a black swan is certainly is reflective of your lack of understanding of climate science.

From the paper

A new one-dimensional radiative equilibrium model for investigating atmospheric radiation entropy flux
Wei Wu* and Yangang Liu
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Building 815E (75 Rutherford Drive), Upton, NY 11973, USA
A new one-dimensional radiative equilibrium model is built to analytically evaluate the vertical pro- file of the Earth’s atmospheric radiation entropy flux under the assumption that atmospheric longwave radiation emission behaves as a greybody and shortwave radiation as a diluted blackbody. Results show that both the atmospheric shortwave and net longwave radiation entropy fluxes increase with altitude, and the latter is about one order in magnitude greater than the former. The vertical profile of the atmospheric net radiation entropy flux follows approximately that of the atmospheric net longwave radiation entropy flux. Sensitivity study further reveals that a ‘darker’ atmosphere with a larger overall atmospheric longwave optical depth exhibits a smaller net radiation entropy flux at all altitudes, suggesting an intrinsic connection between the atmos- pheric net radiation entropy flux and the overall atmospheric longwave optical depth. These results indicate that the overall strength of the atmospheric irreversible processes at all altitudes as determined by the corresponding atmospheric net entropy flux is closely related to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

•••••

These results indicate that despite its simplicity, the new model yields the basic vertical atmospheric structures reasonably well, importantly, removes the problem of the surface thermal discontinuity that has long bothered other similar models.
••

From their conclusion

It is noteworthy that the results obtained from this study reveal that the atmospheric net radiation entropy flux at all altitudes is intrinsically connected with the overall atmospheric LW optical depth, which further implies the sensitivity of the atmospheric net entropy flux (or production rate) to greenhouse gases (i.e. increased overall atmospheric LW optical depth). Application of this new model to the study of climate change is underway.

So even according to the authors this is merely a useful refinement to "similar models" and done is such a way as to be easily incorporated - ie change with vertical positioning.

No where in their conclusions or in the body of the paper nor in the implied assumptions underlying the paper do they question GHG - they only deal with a refined model based on vertical structure ( optical depth ) instead of a constant.

Only you take that unfathomable jump that it somehow changes AGW and the fundamentals of GHG energy retention.
This leads us to believe, like your failure to comprehend what a black swan is, you don't understand this paper, it's conclusions or implications either.

which further implies the sensitivity of the atmospheric net entropy flux (or production rate) to greenhouse gases

THEY get it......you don't

_{Why don't you give Judith Curry nonsense a rest.....gets wearisome.}

 

[Warmer1]

Here's the article

A new one-dimensional radiative equilibrium model for investigating atmospheric radiation entropy flux
Wei Wu* and Yangang Liu

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1545/1367.abstract

"These results indicate that the overall strength of the atmospheric irreversible processes at all altitudes as determined by the corresponding atmospheric net entropy flux is closely related to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."


What does that mean?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

"What do you mean "lack of evidence"? The paper is clear and scientifically sound. Just because you don' understand doesn't mean it's a "black swan"."

That's classic!

 

[Furcifer]

Please indicate anywhere, except pseudoscience political blogs where AGW is called a "pseudoscience."

Here's a book on it:

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Global_Warming/gw_index.html

Here's a scientist from a University discussing it:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM

Here's another webpage:

http://www.biocab.org/Pseudoscience2.html

What exactly are you looking for? Here's a Google Scholar search for applicable papers:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=%22global+warming%22+and+%22pseudoscience%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

 

[Trakar]

RADIATION ENTROPY FLUX AND ENTROPY PRODUCTION OF THE EARTH SYSTEM Wei Wu and Yangang Liu 14 May 2010

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-81482-2008-JA.pdf
"...A few points are noteworthy. First, the quantities of the Earth’s radiation entropy fluxes from this study depend upon some assumptions such as a gray body Earth for calculating the Earth’s outgoing LW radiation entropy flux and a diluted blackbody Earth with Lambertian reflection of incident solar radiation for calculating the Earth’s reflected SW radiation entropy flux. Although the expressions developed in this study represent a useful extension from a blackbody Earth assumption, the Earth system is clearly neither a gray body
nor a diluted blackbody because the radiation property of the Earth’s system as a whole is not isotropic and frequencyindependent. A more accurate calculation can be conducted by directly integrating Planck’s spectral expression (8) if all the necessary parameters can be obtained, e.g., from satellite measurements such as Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) or Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). Second, this study treats the Earth system as a whole, without considering the spatial distribution of the entropy flux within the Earth system..."

If the study's modellings turn out to better reflect the findings from whole earth satellite surveys then the minor adjustments needed to bring modern GCMs will be made and we will have better more accurate models and predictions from them. The authors clearly do not see their work as anything that radically overturns AGW or any major mainstream climate science, but rather as a refinement meant to further climate understandings and to help assist in the both struggle to address climate change and to help design more efficient alternative energy (solar) power processes​

"...This paper has
clearly demonstrated the critical role of the radiation entropy
flux in quantifying the overall entropy production rate of the
Earth system and thus in determining the Earth’s climate. To
some extent, the Earth system can be regarded as a huge “heat
engine,” and the ultimate climate is closely related to its
efficiency in converting solar radiation energy into work.
Close interactions between the two communities are obviously
mutually beneficial. The necessity for such interdisciplinary
interactions in the context of studying radiation
entropy is further reinforced by the concurrent twofold
challenges in battling climate change: to understand/predict
global climate (change) and to develop clean renewable
energy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. In conclusion,
we would like to call for such much needed interactions."

Why is that important? Well it should be evident to anyone with the slightest bit of scientific understanding of how the models work. In case you don't here's a paper that explains them: Should we believe model predictions of future climate change?

"...Conclusion
Some may argue that long-term forecasts are useless because they cannot be properly evaluated and little can be learnt from a prediction without verification. Indeed, the climate change problem is peculiar in that the past offers no direct well-observed analogy to learn from. Yet I argue that, despite the caveats noted above, climate model projections provide valuable information. The model’s ability to reproduce the current climate, the recent observed trends as well as the more distant past, the fact that they are based on physical principles, and the fact that we can understand and interpret many of the results from known processes provide support for the model’s credibility, at least for large scales and certain variables. The value of projections is increased where multiple models are available, in that they indicate which changes are more certain than others. Some scenarios and changes in the climate system are inherently better constrained (e.g. short-term warming trends relate more linearly to observed trends than equilibrium warming), and multiple models and hierarchies of models can help to flag the areas where results depend strongly on model assumptions. Models can also help to infer how much more we may know in a few years by treating one model as reality and predicting it with the other models. Is it more effective to wait for better information or to act earlier? What policy options would we lose by waiting 5 or 10 years? (...)
On a different level, there is the issue of communicating results. There is a
delicate balance between giving the most detailed information possible to guide policy versus communicating only what is known with high confidence. In the former case, all results are used, but there is a risk of the science losing its credibility if the forecasts made a few years later are entirely different or if a forecast made a few years earlier is not verified. The other option is to communicate only what we are confident about. But being conservative (i.e. not being wrong by not saying anything) may be dangerous in this context; once we are sure about certain threats, it may be too late to act.(...)
Finally, as a thought experiment, let us assume that we had a perfect model to make a prediction with no uncertainty. Would the world be any different? Would we more effectively fight the climate change problem? Accurate information on the expected trends is critical for local adaptation, and uncertainties in climate model projections are admittedly an issue. But they are unlikely to be the limiting factor that prevents us from making a decision and acting on, rather than talking about, the climate change problem."

Now these aren't copy and pastes from pseudoscience political blogs, merely the actual words from the sources you referenced in an attempt to distort and misrepresent climate science and AGW specifically, not surprisingly the authors of these papers come to diametrically different conclusions based upon their own work and understandings of the science they present than you imply from your perspective of their work,...curious that.​

 

[Furcifer]

No where in their conclusions or in the body of the paper nor in the implied assumptions underlying the paper do they question GHG - they only deal with a refined model based on vertical structure ( optical depth ) instead of a constant.

It questions the role they play given the sizable error in flux and spectral dependence.

Only you take that unfathomable jump that it somehow changes AGW and the fundamentals of GHG energy retention.

No, but the difference in flux changes their assumed energy retention.

This leads us to believe, like your failure to comprehend what a black swan is, you don't understand this paper, it's conclusions or implications either.

It's your term for something you don't understand, I get it.

Edited for civility. Please try harder.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: arthwollipot

 

[macdoc]

Perhaps you should actually read what you use as a reference 3b

The final paragraph from Prof Dutch who you refer as a source would be very pointedly applied to you....it's almost as if he wrote it ABOUT you.

Show conclusively that an increase in carbon dioxide will not result in global warming.
Pointing to flaws in the climate models, possible alternative explanations, and unanswered questions won't cut it. We know carbon dioxide traps infrared and we know climate is getting warmer. There's a plausible cause and effect relationship there.
You have to show there is not a causal link. You can do that either by identifying what is the cause ("might be" or "possible alternative" isn't good enough) or by showing that somehow extra carbon dioxide does not trap solar heat.

Get your conclusions published in the scientific literature. Not a letter to the editor, not a book by Nigel Calder or Michael Crichton, not mentioned in the popular media or on a blog. Come up with something that passes stringent review.

Got it....??

Come up with something that passes stringent review

you haven't ...not even close.....

and yes Warmer1, his black swan face plant was indeed classic...

 

[Furcifer]

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-81482-2008-JA.pdf
"...A few points are noteworthy. First, the quantities of the Earth’s radiation entropy fluxes from this study depend upon some assumptions such as a gray body Earth for calculating the Earth’s outgoing LW radiation entropy flux and a diluted blackbody Earth with Lambertian reflection of incident solar radiation for calculating the Earth’s reflected SW radiation entropy flux. Although the expressions developed in this study represent a useful extension from a blackbody Earth assumption, the Earth system is clearly neither a gray body
nor a diluted blackbody because the radiation property of the Earth’s system as a whole is not isotropic and frequencyindependent. A more accurate calculation can be conducted by directly integrating Planck’s spectral expression (8) if all the necessary parameters can be obtained, e.g., from satellite measurements such as Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) or Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). Second, this study treats the Earth system as a whole, without considering the spatial distribution of the entropy flux within the Earth system..."

If the study's modellings turn out to better reflect the findings from whole earth satellite surveys then the minor adjustments needed to bring modern GCMs will be made and we will have better more accurate models and predictions from them. The authors clearly do not see their work as anything that radically overturns AGW or any major mainstream climate science, but rather as a refinement meant to further climate understandings and to help assist in the both struggle to address climate change and to help design more efficient alternative energy (solar) power processes​

"...This paper has
clearly demonstrated the critical role of the radiation entropy
flux in quantifying the overall entropy production rate of the
Earth system and thus in determining the Earth’s climate. To
some extent, the Earth system can be regarded as a huge “heat
engine,” and the ultimate climate is closely related to its
efficiency in converting solar radiation energy into work.
Close interactions between the two communities are obviously
mutually beneficial. The necessity for such interdisciplinary
interactions in the context of studying radiation
entropy is further reinforced by the concurrent twofold
challenges in battling climate change: to understand/predict
global climate (change) and to develop clean renewable
energy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. In conclusion,
we would like to call for such much needed interactions."



"...Conclusion
Some may argue that long-term forecasts are useless because they cannot be properly evaluated and little can be learnt from a prediction without verification. Indeed, the climate change problem is peculiar in that the past offers no direct well-observed analogy to learn from. Yet I argue that, despite the caveats noted above, climate model projections provide valuable information. The model’s ability to reproduce the current climate, the recent observed trends as well as the more distant past, the fact that they are based on physical principles, and the fact that we can understand and interpret many of the results from known processes provide support for the model’s credibility, at least for large scales and certain variables. The value of projections is increased where multiple models are available, in that they indicate which changes are more certain than others. Some scenarios and changes in the climate system are inherently better constrained (e.g. short-term warming trends relate more linearly to observed trends than equilibrium warming), and multiple models and hierarchies of models can help to flag the areas where results depend strongly on model assumptions. Models can also help to infer how much more we may know in a few years by treating one model as reality and predicting it with the other models. Is it more effective to wait for better information or to act earlier? What policy options would we lose by waiting 5 or 10 years? (...)
On a different level, there is the issue of communicating results. There is a
delicate balance between giving the most detailed information possible to guide policy versus communicating only what is known with high confidence. In the former case, all results are used, but there is a risk of the science losing its credibility if the forecasts made a few years later are entirely different or if a forecast made a few years earlier is not verified. The other option is to communicate only what we are confident about. But being conservative (i.e. not being wrong by not saying anything) may be dangerous in this context; once we are sure about certain threats, it may be too late to act.(...)
Finally, as a thought experiment, let us assume that we had a perfect model to make a prediction with no uncertainty. Would the world be any different? Would we more effectively fight the climate change problem? Accurate information on the expected trends is critical for local adaptation, and uncertainties in climate model projections are admittedly an issue. But they are unlikely to be the limiting factor that prevents us from making a decision and acting on, rather than talking about, the climate change problem."

Now these aren't copy and pastes from pseudoscience political blogs, merely the actual words from the sources you referenced in an attempt to distort and misrepresent climate science and AGW specifically, not surprisingly the authors of these papers come to diametrically different conclusions based upon their own work and understandings of the science they present than you imply from your perspective of their work,...curious that.​

This is in fact copypasta. Not only that but the formatting makes it impossible to read.

Is there anything you'd like to discuss about the science? How about the fact that it isn't near settled, and 95% of climate scientists think it is anything but "mature"? Even entropy is poorly understood.

The temperature has risen less than 0.5 degrees in the last 150 years, there's no reason to believe it will rise any more than that in the next 150 except seriously flawed models.

 

[Trakar]

Here's a book on it:

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Global_Warming/gw_index.html

aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Global_Warming/gw_index.html

Seriously?! YOu direct me to an e-publication pseudoscience political presentation on a pseudoscience political blog to demonstrate that legitimate mainstream science considers AGW to be pseudoscience?

http://www.aetherometry.com/

http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Aetherometry

Here's a scientist from a University discussing it:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM

Indeed, a university scientist addressing why and how AGW is not pseudoscience:

"...So You Still Don't Believe In Global Warming?Fine. Here's what you have to do.
Absolutely eliminate anything that sounds even remotely like conspiracy talk from your vocabulary. Why others believe in global warming is of no concern of yours. The only issue is whether their ideas are true or false.
Tell all the other skeptics that conspiratorial talk only undermines their credibility. But global warming believers also claim conspiracies? That's not your problem. Your problem is improving your credibility and cleaning up your act, nothing else.
That's not fair? Take it to someone who cares.
Show conclusively that an increase in carbon dioxide will not result in global warming. Pointing to flaws in the climate models, possible alternative explanations, and unanswered questions won't cut it. We know carbon dioxide traps infrared and we know climate is getting warmer. There's a plausible cause and effect relationship there. You have to show there is not a causal link. You can do that either by identifying what is the cause ("might be" or "possible alternative" isn't good enough) or by showing that somehow extra carbon dioxide does not trap solar heat.
Get your conclusions published in the scientific literature. Not a letter to the editor, not a book by Nigel Calder or Michael Crichton, not mentioned in the popular media or on a blog. Come up with something that passes stringent review..."

Thanks for the reference! I've already added it to my database.

Here's another webpage:

http://www.biocab.org/Pseudoscience2.html

Again a pseudoscience site claiming that mainstream science is pseudoscience isn't terribly compelling.

What exactly are you looking for? Here's a Google Scholar search for applicable papers:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=%22global+warming%22+and+%22pseudoscience%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

And aside from a few political opinion pieces published as letters to the editor or in political/economic journals, not one legitimate scientific journal publication intimating that mainstream climate science or the mainstream science supported AGW theory is pseudoscience.

Again, edited for civility

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: arthwollipot

 

[Trakar]

Man made CO2 contributes to warming. To what extent and effect is ostensibly pseudoscience.

This is in direct denial of AGW and mainstream climate science understandings regarding current climate change events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[Warmer1]

"Here's a book on it:

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electron.../gw_index.html"

From the book
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Global_Warming/gw_index.html


So, let's address the four false tenets of the 'global warming' ideology. In summary, we can counter them and their dogma, as follows:

1. First of all, there is no real scientific evidence that demonstrates that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years - neither for seawater, the atmosphere, nor the land mass. There is evidence that shows that there are complex interwoven cycles of intradecadal and supradecadal warming and cooling, but no data that can even be formulated as a warming rate of X deg C per decade with any legitimacy.

2. The main effect of man-made pollution is not 'global warming' but a complex alteration of atmospheric chemistry and energy conversion processes, little of which is being investigated.

3. The role of carbon dioxide in warming the atmosphere has been overestimated, partly because so little is known about that atmospheric chemistry.


2...complex alteration of atmospheric chemistry...little of which is being investigated

3.... so little is known about that atmospheric chemistry.


How low can one go???

 

[macdoc]

Is there anything you'd like to discuss about the science? How about the fact that it isn't near settled, and 95% of climate scientists think it is anything but "mature"? Even entropy is poorly understood.
The temperature has risen less than 0.5 degrees in the last 150 years, there's no reason to believe it will rise any more than that in the next 150 except seriously flawed models.

The second law of thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. Hence, in a system isolated from its environment, the entropy of that system will tend not to decrease

Again because you don't understand it means it's suspect???

You've not even come close to convincing anyone here you have in the least bit understanding of the global atmospheric processes let alone the ability to present a cogent case for overturning AGW.

We DO in fact know it will get warmer ( 'cepting unforseen volcanism ) just at the level of C02 we are at now as the radiative equilibrium is currently lost.
It's observed, understood in theory and fits with the physics of atmosphere and radiation.
The sensible world is acting on that reality which you deny.

You troll fringe denier sites and then quote one source that diametrically opposes your view

He says people like you don't get it .....so do we.

Now let's be specific....

You stated a number

95% of climate scientists think it is anything but "mature

Is this another bit of made up statistics??
....we'll accept your" copy pasta" that backs that number up...

 

[Furcifer]

Again because you don't understand it means it's suspect???

lol, we're talking about Global Warming.

However, the study of radiation entropy, although begun1 century ago [Wien, 1894; Planck, 1913], has not yet been developed as well as that of radiation energy. Many fundamental issues such as the calculation methodology of nonblackbody radiation entropy have not been systematically
investigated. For example, a wide variety of expressions have been used in calculation of the Earth’s radiation entropy flux. Some studies simply use radiation energy flux divided by the absolute temperature as the measure of radiation entropy flux. This approach assumes a direct analogy of radiation entropy to Clausius’s definition of thermodynamic entropy (the definition
is given in section 3) for a nonradiation material system [e.g., Noda and Tokioka, 1983; Peixoto et al., 1991; Ozawa et al., 2003]. Others estimate the radiation entropy flux by making a direct analogy to the expression of blackbody radiation entropy flux [e.g., Petela, 1961, 1964, 2003]. Still others employ and approximate the Planck “mechanical” expression of spectral radiation entropy flux [e.g., Aoki, 1983; Essex, 1984; Lesins, 1990; Stephens and O’Brien, 1993; Holden and Essex, 1997].

I guess if they were only aware of the definition of entropy they wouldn't be stuck. I'll pass this on the scientific establishment.

 

[Furcifer]

This is in direct denial of AGW and mainstream climate science understandings regarding current climate change events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

lol, who's denying AGW?

CO2 from burning fossil fuels has contributed a bit to the 0.5 degree increase in temperature in the last 150 years. Nobody denies that!

 

[BenBurch]

Meanwhile, the polar ice cap is not recovering from the near-record summer;

 

[Furcifer]

So, let's address the four false tenets of the 'global warming' ideology. In summary, we can counter them and their dogma, as follows:

Yes, let's

1. First of all, there is no real scientific evidence that demonstrates that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years - neither for seawater, the atmosphere, nor the land mass. There is evidence that shows that there are complex interwoven cycles of intradecadal and supradecadal warming and cooling, but no data that can even be formulated as a warming rate of X deg C per decade with any legitimacy.

There is, but it is based on some rather unscientific methods of gathering data. Even then it only shows about 1/2 of a degree increase.

2. The main effect of man-made pollution is not 'global warming' but a complex alteration of atmospheric chemistry and energy conversion processes, little of which is being investigated.

The theory is sound, however the actual climate is much, much more complex than simply measuring CO2 concentration and determining the temperature increase and projecting that out over decades.

3. The role of carbon dioxide in warming the atmosphere has been overestimated, partly because so little is known about that atmospheric chemistry.

Not the chemistry but the physics.

If the Earth was a stationary ball of water hovering in space, and the Sun and ideal source of radiation, the effect of increasing CO2 would be fairly easy to estimate. Since it isn't things are much, much more difficult.

Is there any of this you disagree with?

 

[Furcifer]

And aside from a few political opinion pieces published as letters to the editor or in political/economic journals, not one legitimate scientific journal publication intimating that mainstream climate science or the mainstream science supported AGW theory is pseudoscience.

That's funny,
'Climate scientists are skeptical of the mediaOnly 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.

Scientists don't believe the mainstream media is reliable but that's all you ever seem to quote. You know why they don't really believe it, because they consider the mainstream "pseudoscience".