> For starters, the models can't predict the influence of aerosols

Then why does the First Assessment Report waste so much paper on the influence and modelling of aerosols? Also, wasn't the sun supposed to have neglible influence? Also, if 1998 skews the results of the Third Report, why are its models essentially the same as those of the Second Report in 1996 and the first in 1991?

Your argument is treated in the IPCC report as "Cold Start" - the fallacy of failing to account for the rise of CO2 in previous decades which would have already started to heat up the oceans. In their estimate, this effect has already been accounted for. So, then how come the First Assessment Report of the IPCC gives a best estimate of a rise of 0.3K (0.2K-0.5K) per decade since 1990?

Global temperatures are also below every single projected scenario of the Third Assessment Report 13 years ago, that also took everything into account which you are complaining about. The scenarios included an immediate stop of the rise of CO2 emissions in the year 2000.

Reality consistently contradicts the models. The models are wrong.

The accuracy of global temperature measurement is +- 0.1K. CO2 concentrations rose by a bit more than 10% over those 17 years. Logarithmically speaking (which is all that counts), that's 14% of a doubling. Suppose a doubling would cause a rise of 1.5K (low end of IPCC projections), then we should have seen a rise of 0.2K. That's easily detectable, very well above noise level over a period of two decades (you can take 5 year averages) and just didn't happen.

Suppose a doubling would cause a rise of 4.5K (high end of IPCC projections), the rise should have been 0.6K or about as much as in the last 80 years. Any idiot can see that this didn't happen either in the last 17 years.

"Nobody said the science is settled."

64 million hits on google disagree.

Yes, they are in random order. As you would expect after warming has stopped.

Well, I haven't seen 6-foot rabbits either. But their absence is not for want of trying.

Well, Stiglitz wasn't taken seriously at the time. You could have shown what Stiglitz said to Alan Greenspan and he would have rejected it, along with most other mainstream economists.

It doesn't matter who debunked the unrealistic assumptions in climate science, since you won't take it seriously anyway. If you don't think the fact that temperatures are 0.5 degree below the predictions that were made 25 years ago and again 13 years ago, is any indication that the models failed, it doesn't matter what evidence I present. That's because you don't care about normal scientific standards that say: if the prediction is consistently wrong, the theory is wrong.

Do you remember how much support the standard model of macroeconomics enjoyed in 2006? The great moderation was proof that we finally understood how the economy works, a global recession was perfectly impossible because you could always just lower interest rates and be fine. If you had sampled 12000 articles in economic journals, you would have found very little dissent indeed.

Surely, they must have been right, because we all know that consensus is the best way to judge the veracity of scientific theory.

Well ... no.

Google "nissan leaf warranty" first hit:

"Every US specification Nissan LEAF® is backed by a New Vehicle Limited Warranty providing: 36-month/36,000-mile basic coverage (whichever occurs earlier)"

$30,000 for a car that is equivalent to a $10,000 car that can be fuelled in minutes and has essentially unlimited range. If I get my imperial units right, you can by some 5000 gallons of fuel for this price ($4 per gallon seems to be the high end in the US) and drive about 200.000 miles @ 40mpg. And of course electricity isn't free either. The 50,000 kWh you need to drive this distance will cost you at least $5000 plus the price of at least one new set of batteries which are probably in the $10,000 range.

You may contemplate the numbers much more thoroughly than I did, while waiting a couple of ours for your Leaf or Tesla to charge up.

Especially when it's in a magnetic field. That's not a loose end, that's a black void. So far nobody has any good idea how to predict the behaviour of something as simple as a gas after electrons have been separated from the nucleii. Dito neural networks. And that's the just the two things that come to my mind immediately.

Erm, wasn't there something the greenies used to say? Like save the trees? Protect the forests? Leave room for nature?

Well, obviously I must have been hallucinating all the ways through the 90ies. And don't worry, I'll see a psychiatrist about this decade-long delusion at once. But let's pretend there had been an environmental movement in the second half of the last century, when people said that there is some inherent value in nature itself. Wouldn't you think that people in this movement would have been somewhat upset about the prospect of converting huge tracts of land that used be called "forests" into industrial fuel plantations? Well, I for one would imagine they'd be, but they are not.

Hence my suspicion that I was merely hallucinating. If I don't respond, I guess I stuck in comfy happy white room.

Why is it that everytime I think I'm being unfair to the Japanese I find out that I'm actually not?

Seriously, why do the Japanese put up with that shit? Whole cities are being destroyed left and right, thousands die - not just in the Tohoku earthquake, but also the Kanto, the Great Hanshin and the dozen or so large earthquakes in the last century? If they are so serious about their fear for the lives as they seem to be regarding radiation, then why not about earthquakes, which isn't a risk, but merely the next catastrophe waiting to happen in a place like Japan?

Can I write a sentence that isn't a question? Yes.

It seems to me that the root of the Tohoku Tsunami disaster was the decision to build cities in a places where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage. The government of a country whose history is littered with Tsunami disasters [wikipedia.org] should have known better. The design basis for tsunamis at cities along the Tohoku coast was about 5.7 meters, it should have been: "Don't build a city plant within 20-30km of the coast and even then put it on high ground"

You know, it's just people. People can die. Tens of thousands can die. Nobody cares. They're just dead man.

But radioactivity. Now that is something different. That is terrible!

What is that "qualification" you are asking for? What kind of qualitifaction does it take, to make a statement as simple as "you can't lose what you don't have" AND have it accepted?

What we have here is a situation that is the exact same thing as a politician claiming that crime is on the rise: Just look at the amount of money that has been stolen in each of the last 30 years. It has been rising consistently, it is now 3 times larger. Crime is three times worse!

Not so says Joe Public pointing out that people now also earn 3 times as much money and are carrying around 3 times as money. There is 3 times as much money around to steal. So you would expect the same level of thievery to net 3 times as much money.

But of course, what is clearly a fearmongering politician in the case I described here, is suddenly perfectly plausible as soon as the climate crowd moves in. You, sirs and madams, are disgusting.