http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/128.htm

“Feedbacks between atmospheric chemistry, climate, and the biosphere were not developed to the stage that they could be included in the projected numbers here. Failure to include such coupling is likely to lead to systematic errors and may substantially alter the projected increases in the major greenhouse gases.”

Care to provide any evidence to support your point?

I didn’t think so.

Your adherence to the dogma of the Church of Singer-tology will definitely get you promoted to a higher level Lindzen.

Regards.

Sorry, didn’t count. No change in my opinion between reading it fast and reading it slow.

Andrew -

Pride of ownership can cloud one’s judgement. Sorry, but the reality is models are just too simple to make policy with. But, hey, Enron et al (including the Oil-for-Food guys) appreciate your incorrigibility.

Steve: There’s no way any model can hindcast the last 100 years of climate.

Everyone else: Here’s a mountain of peer reviewed evidence (evidence provided)

Steve (fingers in ears): la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la — I can’t hear you — la-la-la-la-la

Everyone else: Seriously, Steve, there’s a huge body of peer-reviewed literature on this subject. While models have uncertainty, they do show skill over the last 150 years.

Steve: I reject your reality and substitute my own!
(he then genuflects at the altar of techcentralstation and does three Hail Lindzens).

It’s clear that Steve will never change his views, regardless of the scientific evidence. That’s fine — I dealt with people like him during the ozone-CFC debate about 10 years ago, and I watched while common sense and strong science buried them. And to the end, they all cried, “CFCs don’t destroy ozone.” I expect the same to occur here. So long, Steve! Give my regards to Fred Singer.

For anyone actually interested, one can find a summary of our confidence in climate models at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm

And anyone who wants to see the raw data (Steve asked, as if he’d actually look at it! LOL!), you can find the archived AR/4 model runs at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ then click on “data portal”.

Regards.

“Or is … as weak as Dano’s, who accused me of backpedaling but never actually came through on that either? ”

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000733politics_and_the_ipc.html

I’d say “stop making things up”, SH, but that is, in effect, telling you to be quiet and we don’t want to silence anyone…

So, I’ll simply state this: Steve, I suspect your comments are conscious spam, intended to hijack the thread. If they are not consciously so, they are in effect so. Spam. You are best ignored.

I really gotta stop taking this off:

[ignore]

D

“I’d be happy to provide actual citations — complete with titles!”

Which you haven’t done. Did you just forget, or are you just standing by your picture (you know, the alleged graph with no data, not even any x,y points)?

Or is your ability to back up what you said as weak as Dano’s, who accused me of backpedaling but never actually came through on that either?

You wrote:
just go ahead and worship your simplistic models

The only person worshipping anything is you. We have repeatedly presented you with peer-reviewed analyses supporting our point, which you simply reject, preferring to adhere to your dogma. And you repeatedly refuse to give us anything that supports your point of view, or tell us where you even heard it.

I realize that your membership in the church of techcentralstation requires you to say that, but seriously, do you expect anyone on this website to take you seriously?

Do some research on the topic next time (that means to read more than the title).

Regards.