Because when you put in an AGW term, the models do much better than if you leave out any AGW term. As is abundantly clear from the link I provided. http://www.ipcc.ch/publication.... If you can demonstrate that models with the average shoe size of red-headed clowns as a factor do better than those without, then I will absolutely accept it as a parameter. Kind of have to, mathematically, and by the definition of mathematical model. Or, if you can provide a model without AGW that does anywhere near as well as the models with. How is it you are so ignorant of what is, not only the basic tenet of mathematical modeling, so completely intuitively obvious, that factors which make the model fit significantly better are kept, those that don't are dropped? Are you expending a lot of mental energy to maintain this impenetrable denseness? Why?

As in, http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...? As I said, "models without agw are completely useless for the past 50 years" How does this not show that it's due mostly to man? Compared to the size of the miss without an AGW term, the overshoot in recent years is negligible. Of course, if anybody anywhere does have a model which does match climate history without including an AGW term, this is a great chance to post it and show how those IPCC folks are cherry picking, right? Anyone? Hello? If not, then any honest scientist is essentially required to include AGW in any climate hypothesis. Otherwise, you are indeed a denier. You don't have to show that making a given change would slow stop or reverse it. I have a model that suggests that if you swallow 200 mg of cyanide you will die. I strongly urge you to accept this model and not disregard it on the basis that it does not have a mechanism that would slow stop or reverse it. "If you have a model showing warming, you still have to show that it's due mostly to man"

And that's why we take all the kids who have the impetus to come here from South America and send them home, rather than give them an education so they can support our society in the future when there will be more retirees then workets. So sad that they are already incorrigible criminals at age 7,having deliberately violated our immigration laws.

Actually scientists reinterpret old data all the time. You think they don't make relativistic corrections to estimated velocities from data pre relativity ? And you think that actual temperature data now that we have it should not be used because it no longer correlates with tree rings from the far north? Because that's more logical then to hypothesize that something might be happening in places like Alaska over the past 50 years that might affect tree growth? But you fudge the central question; if you don't know of any models that don't overestimate recent warming, then do you know of any models with no agw term at all that do a decent job of estimating recent temperature at all? The way they estimate 19th and early 20th century temps? It's a pretty standard axiom of modeling that if a term improves the model fit, it's a valid effect. What's the denials logic; models with the AGW term overestimate the warming in the most recent years, whereas models without agw are completely useless for the past 50 years, thereby disproving AGW?

Nonsense. It's a simple matter of the free market. Some people want to use the atmosphere as an open sewer for whatever byproducts are produced by their particular industry, others want to use the atmosphere for breathing. A textbook case for the invisible hand of the market to determine the best use of the air. But statistics think they know better than the rest of us, they think they can decide whether breathing is more valuable than waste disposal. This is the kind of socialism that makes places like Canada or Europe such hell holes.

Ah, I think I read your piece explaining this in PNAS.

Just a big sukkah.

Israel developed it on their own budget. The uS bought in when it was demonstrated to work.

Israel covered the R&D and installation of the first two batteries themselves. Since they were shown effective, the US is in for $200 million a year since 2012 to finance another 8 batteries, in exchange for rights to the technology. Half of that money is required to be spent on US contractors.

We're supposed to believe that there is great debate among ecological researchers over whether an average rise of 2 degrees C will disturb local ecologies or not.

Kind of like how anybody who could publish a reliable paper demonstrating antigravity is prevented from publishing, you can only get grant money for experiments which prove gravity exists. In the latest issue of PNAS alone, there are papers demonstrating what happens when you drop an empty beer bottle, an elephant, a quinoa and kale salad, a top quark, and the planet Mercury. What a surprise, they are all demonstrated to fall. Damn scientific fundamentalists!

"As a scientist who studies cloud formation around dust particles as nuclei, I have no idea why I would want to make the use of petroleum and coal obsolete, but... it's just too good a scam. Alright, count me in!"

So... publications of scientists whose results disprove AGW aren't included in climatology papers? Where did those 3% of naysayers and 66% of agnostics come from, then? And where are these disprovers publishing then? (I know, here it comes, all together now, "They're not allowed to publish!" Probably secretly murdered by Al Gore's New World Order black heliocopters.

Actually, it's 97% of the papers which expressed some sort of explicit or implicit conclusion re AGW in the abstract. Best to be quite precise in our definitions of what is being asked and answered or we land in easily skeptified territory. Although in the study as a validation they did ask some thousand or so of the authors directly whether they believed in AGW or not, or were agnostic, and got results remarkably similar to what they gleaned from reading the abstracts.

OK, I"ll bite. How many grants are given to the study of ..... non catastrophic AGW? and how many grants are given to the study of catastrophic AGW? And how many to studies debunking AGW? If you have the answers to these questions, why haven't you provided them in your original post, to make your point? At very least it appears that you are engaging in slinging doubt like a shotgun full of mud, in hopes that at some point you might land on something correct. How do you put that into a study proposal, anyway? "I plan to correlate ocean temperatures with currents in order to prove that AGW will not be catastrophic" "NO! You must intend to prove that AGW WILL be catastrophic! Denied! Denied! Denied!!"